The Constitution and Religion

[Guest]

Not sure I could post directly on the forum with a faith concern, but in this case, it is as much a constitutional question. Last night Bill O gave a very interesting opinion or fact, I am not sure which, of the difference between Religion and Christianity in relation to the US Constitution. In brief, we have freedom from Religion like Catholic, Methodist etc. etc., but that the constitution was based on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, the way I understood his intent: THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. Assuming that is a FACT, why do we even entertain issues that pertain to laws and rights that are not within the realm of Christianity? Sharia Law for example.

MY OPINION: As important as it is for Muslim countries to stamp out any Infidel beliefs, we better wake up and stop any non-Christian laws or customs from overriding our constitution. I firmly believe that freedom from or of religion does not mean freedom to change this countries laws and customs to better fit any faith, religion or belief that does not follow a strict compliance with Christian philosophy..

[Guest]

Oh No, we agree on something. No religion should be allowed to make or take away any rights that we have under the US Constitution. The Constitution only states that Government will NOT force upon us any religion and that each of us are allowed to practice any religion we want within reason of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[Guest]

Oh No, we agree on something. No religion should be allowed to make or take away any rights that we have under the US Constitution. The Constitution only states that Government will NOT force upon us any religion and that each of us are allowed to practice any religion we want within reason of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I am on board with that, but more specific, my question is if we are constitutionally a Christian nation, should we allow other faiths laws like Sharia Law to become embedded into our judicial system. I worry about the violence that comes with some beliefs. I fear an increase in tolerance to Muslims that commit human rights crimes in their communities because it is not criminal in their faith or culture.

[Guest]

If you want to live under Sharia Law move to a Muslim country otherwise you can follow your regilion as long as it does not violate Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of anyone else. A crime is a crime is a crime no matter under what desguish it is committed.

[Guest]

If you want to live under Sharia Law move to a Muslim country otherwise you can follow your regilion as long as it does not violate Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of anyone else. A crime is a crime is a crime no matter under what desguish it is committed.

Well said, and I must admit all I know of Muslims is what I see on the news, but I do not like what I see. I may be more sensitive as I have a Wife, two Daughters and two Granddaughters. I don't see a great future for women in the Muslim faith. But again, your response is short and to the point and I know you are correct.

[Guest]

the Crusades,Spanish Inquisition,bringing Christianity to the new world leading to the slaughter of thousands.....no religion is violence free. My opinion....religion is a very personal matter between a person and their God,keep the gov't out of it.

[Guest]

waynet, that is the problem with Sharia Law. It is government sponsored religion, if you don't believe in Sharia Law the government can force you to or kill you. Not my idea of freedom of religion based on the United States Constitution.

[Guest]

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion


"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion


Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

[Guest]

the Crusades,Spanish Inquisition,bringing Christianity to the new world leading to the slaughter of thousands.....no religion is violence free. My opinion....religion is a very personal matter between a person and their God,keep the gov't out of it.

:agree:

[Guest]

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:



Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

You are trying to confuse the issue with facts! LOL I totally agree with you, but you said it much better then I could.

[Guest]

d"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:



Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

It seems a bit disingenuous to hold the controversial Treaty of Tripoli as the litmus test for defining Christianity and Government. I believe it was the vigorous debate over Article 11 you are actually referring to. The administrator would not allow me the keystrokes required to give the topic a full scholarly airing. Here goes the greatly abridged version. Keep in mind, context is important.

For centuries, Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa preyed on Mediterranean commerce. The U.S. was forced to pay tribute before the Revolution. Afterward, a series of Barbary Treaties including the Treaty of Tripoli were created. That treaty was originally created in Arabic and it has been convincingly held that Article 11 was not part of the original translation.

The Treaty went from Tripoli, to Algiers, to Portugal and then to the United States. This was around 1797 and transportation options were limited and slow. The disputed document was 7 months in transit being signed by officials along the way. By the time it reached Adams and Congress, they would have been unable to cancel the misinterpreted and incompetently translated terms. This is the core of the ongoing debate over Article 11.

Historians and scholars are largely in agreement that the flawed and mistranslated Article 11 was according to Frank Lambert of Purdue University, "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes. The translation flaw remains an arguable mystery.

The Treaty was remarkably short lived and broken by President Jefferson in 1801 when the Barbary bad guys tried to shake the U.S. down. In an interesting aside, the U.S. had built an impressive fleet to protect our assets in the Med from the pirates. The government authorized Commodore Dale to engage the enemy in protecting assets. In political pandering style, Congress precluded the Commodore from attacking Tripoli who had declared war on the U.S. Sound familiar in today's context? In classic United States Navy style and ingenuity, and in deference to Congress's "no attack" order, Dale gave Tripoli rulers an opportunity to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I'd love to buy the Commodore a drink.

Is it me or is there a fascinating parallel with today's Muslim pirates. Anyway, before you doze off, there will not be a quiz.

[Guest]

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:



Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

The founding documents and their liberal use of Christian language, as used by the Christians who authored them would seem to contradict John Adams statement in the opinion of many.

Establishment is a noun? So?; what's the point of your complaint? You lost me on that one.

[Guest]

WOW, you guys are way to smart for me to follow. I fear Muslims and that is as deep as I can go. I will bow out to the intellectuals on this thread.

[Guest]

Villager II - I've read your posts.......you can hold your own with anyone on the board. Jump in and give us your perspective. Your avatar suggests you are a bike rider. Great physical exercise but we all need cerebral exercise as well.
Have a good day.

[Guest]

The faux attempts at questioning the relationship of the Constitution vis a vis religion/Christianity continues to be half hearted attempts by recalcitrants to foist their beliefs or lack thereof on the majority of Americans.


While I consider myself to be more spiritual than religious. And while I may take issue with a number of religions not in the mainstream it is essential that we defend religious freedoms for all. The facts and history support that mainstream christian religions have contributed more to the benefit of society than not. In fact there appears to be a correlation between the descent of civility and morality to the lessening of christian values.

So I will not waste my energy debating the constitution's intent that erves no more than a dilberate distraction, but focus my energy on retaining a christian America and a belief "In God We Trust."

[Guest]

I am on board with that, but more specific, my question is if we are constitutionally a Christian nation, should we allow other faiths laws like Sharia Law to become embedded into our judicial system. I worry about the violence that comes with some beliefs. I fear an increase in tolerance to Muslims that commit human rights crimes in their communities because it is not criminal in their faith or culture.

I agree with you on the fear of having Sharia Law becoming embedded into our judicial system. Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, or just plain Womans libber...here is just a hint of what justice is like with Sharia Law in the 21st Century~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA_9UJwCPXA

[Guest]

V II glad someone else is realizing that Sharia law is as dangerous as it is .I'm not against people practicing their religion but I don't know any organized religion or group of people that are so hell bent to destroy another group of people as the Muslims. I am tired of being politically correct and not saying what I think. Bunk say what you but I'm not going to be nice anymore to h--- with it get out and return this country to Americans. You worry about the illegals ( south of the border) that is the least of your worries. Shape up and get with the program get this current admin. out of office and out of the country. Tar and feather em and run out on a rail and that is my final offer.. If you use to live in Detroit you would understand. In the 60's there was a song ( You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction) how true it is and we didn't learn s--- did we

[Guest]

for those who are so inclined: to support the work of brigitte gabriel in spreading the warnings against sharia law and radical islam, her excellent organization, Act for America, works very hard to lobby against CAIR and other groups who are influencing our govt....google it....worth your time.

[Guest]

...MY OPINION: As important as it is for Muslim countries to stamp out any Infidel beliefs, we better wake up and stop any non-Christian laws or customs from overriding our constitution. I firmly believe that freedom from or of religion does not mean freedom to change this countries laws and customs to better fit any faith, religion or belief that does not follow a strict compliance with Christian philosophy..Hmmm, what do we do with Jews, Buddhists, Ba'hai's, Hindus, Seiks, Shintos, those following Confuscious or Tao, those that follow the occult, atheists, or even those who haven't made up their minds? Less than three-quarters of all Americans claim to be Christians. That's a whole lot of people--something like 75 million Americans--that you'd throw under the bus, so to speak.

By the way, if Muslims choose to follow Shira law, so long as it does not conflict with the laws passed by our Congress or other levels of government in the country, what's wrong with that? If Shira Law is more restrictive than the law of the land, why should we care? And if our laws are more restrictive or different, and followers of Shira Law are held to account to "our" rules of law, what's wrong with that?

If you keep you eye on the birth rates of Muslims compared to Christians worldwide, the time will come when they will become the majority in many countries as well as in the U.S. That's already close to happening in France, Italy and in not too many decades, England. What happens then...when Muslims elect representatives who make "their" law our law?

[Guest]

Hmmm, what do we do with Jews, Buddhists, Ba'hai's, Hindus, Seiks, Shintos, those following Confuscious or Tao, those that follow the occult, atheists, or even those who haven't made up their minds? Less than three-quarters of all Americans claim to be Christians. That's a whole lot of people--something like 75 million Americans--that you'd throw under the bus, so to speak.

By the way, if Muslims choose to follow Shira law, so long as it does not conflict with the laws passed by our Congress or other levels of government in the country, what's wrong with that? If Shira Law is more restrictive than the law of the land, why should we care? And if our laws are more restrictive or different, and followers of Shira Law are held to account to "our" rules of law, what's wrong with that?

If you keep you eye on the birth rates of Muslims compared to Christians worldwide, the time will come when they will become the majority in many countries as well as in the U.S. That's already close to happening in France, Italy and in not too many decades, England. What happens then...when Muslims elect representatives who make "their" law our law?

Of all the religions that you mentioned, does anyone of them state that if you don't believe my way, "We will kill you, stone your women and lie to you to get a head and believe that you are not human if you don't believe in allah." Notice the small "a" in allah.

[Guest]

Of all the religions that you mentioned, does anyone of them state that if you don't believe my way, "We will kill you, stone your women and lie to you to get a head and believe that you are not human if you don't believe in allah." Notice the small "a" in allah.

Ditto!!!!! I do not have a problem with different faiths or even with atheists, just the primitive violent actions of radical Muslims.

[Guest]

Here we go again. We simply cannot cherry pick the religions we believe have rights and those that do not have such rights. VK is correct in that assertion. However he also continues on with an argument that supports other posters concernedregarding sharia Law with his explanation that the Muslim population is going to explode in America.

However America has always looked to the law of the land to sort out such differences. It is what makes America, America.

I am as livid as the next person to the possibility of encroachment on America of sharia law as I am Scientiology, Wiccun (sp) witches) etc. But we are a nation of laws

[Guest]

Once again Scientiologists or Wiccans will not KILL YOU for not believing their way. Everyone is free to believe anyway they want as long as it don't interfer with the rights of others. Once you start demanding that you believe my way or I KILL YOU as you are not looked at as a human being, then your religion is not welcome in this country. You want to stone to death a women for being raped and then pad the rapist on the back for being a man, get out of this country. Try that with my daughter/wife and you best have a really good place to hid.

[Guest]

......
By the way, if Muslims choose to follow Shira law, so long as it does not conflict with the laws passed by our Congress or other levels of government in the country, what's wrong with that? If Shira Law is more restrictive than the law of the land, why should we care? And if our laws are more restrictive or different, and followers of Shira Law are held to account to "our" rules of law, what's wrong with that?

If you keep you eye on the birth rates of Muslims compared to Christians worldwide, the time will come when they will become the majority in many countries as well as in the U.S. That's already close to happening in France, Italy and in not too many decades, England. What happens then...when Muslims elect representatives who make "their" law our law?

As to your saying "why should we care?"....you answer why we should care in your last paragraph! Under OUR law, EVERYONE is supposed to have equal protection under our law, but by incorporating sharia law, our law is open to the brutality and oppression of their law.

There are countless examples of how sharia law is gaining footholds in US courts. Here's one most people probably never heard of!

Sharia Law Gains Foothold in U.S.--Federal Judge Upholds Government Funding of Islam

"“This astonishing decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street bankers to explicitly promote Sharia law ─ the 1200 year old body of Islamic canon law based on the Koran, which demands the destruction of Western Civilization and the United States. This is the same law championed by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of thousands of Christians throughout the world. The Law Center will do everything it can to stop Sharia law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is considered the market leader in SCF. According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Sharia-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG; and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated $70 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities, $47.5 billion of which was actually distributed to AIG. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in SCF, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself publicly describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed].”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG also employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee.” .....
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=119&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=877

[Guest]

villages kahuna, i am shocked that with your own words you agree that the muslim population explosion will eventually result in the complete overthrow of our judeo-christian culture in america, and you seem to think that that is just peachy and the way our founding fathers would have liked it? the problem is that islam is not only a religion, but is also a political ideology, which has no place in our western civilization other than completely over-taking it....if we do not want this to happen, we must stop it NOW! if we do not defend ourselves legally now, our descendents will all be muslims.

[Guest]

Muslim states are theocracies meaning there is not a separation between government and religion. Theocracies are governed by divine guidance or those officials who seem to be divinely guided. Religious texts ARE the law as in Sharia law.

Here are the words of a Muslim cleric you knew who was divinely guided.

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini


Alexis de Tocqueville on the Muslim world:

"I studied the Kuran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

It is not a well guarded Muslim secret that Islam seeks and calls for domination over all other religions. The goal of world domination is very real and articulated in undeniable terms as well. Kahuna's observation about the spread of Islam throughout Europe and in this hemisphere itself should raise red flags galore. Yes, even now, some election districts in Michigan and Minnesota are dominated by Muslim electorates. I'm not sure they're doing as well in Birmingham, Biloxi and Dallas. Is it constitutional and legal? Of course. Should we wait until Sharia Law legislation starts to replace the law of our land.....legally......to be concerned? You tell me.

Here’s the list of the country’s top 10 Muslim capitals:

Detroit
Washington, D.C.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Philadelphia
New York
Atlanta
Peoria, Illinois
San Francisco
Houston
Chicago

It is the American way to celebrate freedom of religion. The predicate of the Muslim religion is Sharia law. As a theocracy there is no distinction between religion and the government. Under the Muslim theocracy a person is either a Muslim, subjugated to the Muslims or killed. Therein lies the rub.

Kahuna......once again we have a divergence of opinion. Wait a minute.......is that the PC police pulling up in front of my house? In the words of the Late Warren Zevon......"send lawyers, guns and money, the ---- has hit the fan."

[Guest]

I happen to have an icon on my desk top concerning a wikipedia link pertaining to Alexis Charles Henri Cierei deTocqueville since he seems to be quoted in the newspapers more and more these days. He did indeed address the Muslim issue in the manner, fashion and with those conclusions that Cabo 35 relates.

There are many organization both relgious and secular that are a direct threat to our way of life. In a previous post posit that we are a nation of laws and have to address those threats in that manner. Is there anyone that hasa more effective and lawful way to deal with this problem because i am willing to listen?

The Europeans are now beginning to rebel against the Muslim threat even neutral Switzerland.

[Guest]

villages kahuna, i am shocked that with your own words you agree that the muslim population explosion will eventually result in the complete overthrow of our judeo-christian culture in america, and you seem to think that that is just peachy and the way our founding fathers would have liked it? the problem is that islam is not only a religion, but is also a political ideology, which has no place in our western civilization other than completely over-taking it....if we do not want this to happen, we must stop it NOW! if we do not defend ourselves legally now, our descendents will all be muslims.I think that the result you describe will be "just peachy"? I guess I should never be surprised in this forum how people simply make up interpretations of what others say or write.

Our founding fathers set up a system of government based on a democratic process of selecting representatives of the people who make the laws and select the judiciary who enforces them. If over a long time if people who embrace Islam become the majority, electing representatives who establish the rule of law set up in our Constitution then their majority will dictate, regardless of what our history has been. Would the founding fathers like it? Probably not. Will American Christians or Jews like it? Absolutely not! But it's not anything the founding fathers might have considered when they set up our system of government.

[Guest]

We all may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, at least in the short term. We have a system of laws and a judiciary to enforce them. Those secular laws trump any and all religious laws. And they will unless or until a majority of Americans elect representatives who change those laws and select different judges to enforce them. For the time being, our rule of law trumps Muslim Sharia law.

If Muslims were to follow their law and if it put them in violation of our secular system of laws, our "law of the land" would prevail. Muslims who stone a woman for sexual misdeeds will be subject to our laws prohibiting and punishing murder. Muslim men who violate the rights of women will be subject to our laws, not what the Kuran says. Civil disagreements will be settled by our courts, not a mullah at a mosque.

So I think we're all getting our shorts in a knot over something that's not going to be an issue in our lifetimes. But if Muslims become the majority in the United States, as their birthrate suggests that they will, that's a whole different set of circumstances. We'll have a chance to see how other democratic countries deal with such a problem before we face it. France and Italy will be majority Muslim within the next 10-15 years. England is not far behind. We'll see.

[Guest]

villages kahuna, i am shocked that with your own words you agree that the muslim population explosion will eventually result in the complete overthrow of our judeo-christian culture in america, and you seem to think that that is just peachy and the way our founding fathers would have liked it? the problem is that islam is not only a religion, but is also a political ideology, which has no place in our western civilization other than completely over-taking it....if we do not want this to happen, we must stop it NOW! if we do not defend ourselves legally now, our descendents will all be muslims.

Your concerns are well taken. I share those concerns. I do not view the future of Islam and its impact on my descendants with an eminent, elevated state of alarm and panic. Optimistically speaking, I believe so much in our American culture and our way of life that it occurs to me that domestic Muslims who subscribe to rigid Sharia standards will, in time assimilate into our culture and establish reformed Sharia consistent with our Constitutional and statutory standards. This will not be a process without great acrimony, suffering and pain. It may even take the form of a multi-generational progression, but it will occur. We need to keep ourselves informed and we need to be vigilant. I will loan you my rose colored glasses if you need them. Be of good cheer and have fun in the Villages.

[Guest]

... I believe so much in our American culture and our way of life that it occurs to me that domestic Muslims who subscribe to rigid Sharia standards will, in time assimilate into our culture and establish reformed Sharia consistent with our Constitutional and statutory standards. This will not be a process without great acrimony, suffering and pain. It may even take the form of a multi-generational progression, but it will occur....Good point, Cabo. It seems to already be happening in places like Dearborn, Michigan, the largest concentration of Muslims this side of Baghdad. As you point out not without some acrimony, but assimilation is happening nonetheless.

There is a problem in the Dearborn schools, where the young male students widely disrespect the rights of the girl students because of their training at home. As I understand it, so far the teachers and school administration has kept the situation under control and consistent with our secular laws and standards. But the teachers are largely Christian Americans, not Muslim first or second generation Americans. I suppose if the school system in a place like Dearborn could find enough Muslims trained to be teachers, the situation might be a bit different. They would still have to follow the rules laid down by the city, state and federal educational administrators, but tensions could arise.

My sister was a first grade teacher in Brooklyn, where the majority of her students were Muslim. She reported that they were uniformly polite, if not always well-behaved. What amazed her was their following of their religious laws and beliefs at times like Ramadan. She described the Muslim kids rejecting morning milk and snacks and sitting in the lunchroom at noon, talking quietly but eating or drinking nothing, consistent with their religious beliefs.

Now that I think about it, how much different is that from the Catholic kids not being able to eat meat on Fridays when we were kids? By the way, do they still do that, or is that one of the things that disappeared along with Latin masses?

But so far, the concentration of Muslims in Dearborn seem to be doing exactly as you suggest, assimilating into American society and culture with only minimal problems.

[Guest]

OK. Now that that's all resolved, we can get back to a good dog-poop thread, or maybe a good old loathe-the-rich-developer thread.

[Guest]

The founding documents and their liberal use of Christian language, as used by the Christians who authored them would seem to contradict John Adams statement in the opinion of many.

Establishment is a noun? So?; what's the point of your complaint? You lost me on that one.

It's a bit of a hot button of mine and I should fully explain.

Most people seem to think that the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of *a* religion". The meaning being that there would be no 'official' religion as there was (and is) in Great Britain.

But that's not what it says. In the misinterpreted version, they think that "establishment" is a verb, and in "to establish". It's a noun.

A church is a religious establishment. A pub could be called an alcohol establishment. In that context, "establishment of religion" is everything from a church to religious schools. It's one of the reasons churches don't pay property taxes.

One of the original reasons for that clause were the kinds of laws that were seen in Great Britain that might have said "no Irish Catholic could be recognised as a lawyer". It says the state will not 'respect' one religion or any religious establishment over another.

This is also why challenges to things like nativity scenes are ripe for misinterpretation. SOme town bans the nativity scene and suddenly the hue and cry is either "war on religion" or "no Christmas". What that really turns out to be are wimpy town officials since the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that you CAN have religious displays on public grounds but that you cannot discriminate. It means you can have your nativity scene so long as you allow a menorah, should someone ask to put one up.

[Guest]

Now that I think about it, how much different is that from the Catholic kids not being able to eat meat on Fridays when we were kids? By the way, do they still do that, or is that one of the things that disappeared along with Latin masses?


Vatican II kind of got rid of the "fish on Friday" rule.

I'm still waiting for the "priests will not rape children" rule.

[Guest]

for all you non-catholics let me assure you that catholics still observe the meatless fridays of lent...back to the subject of co-existing with our muslim immigrants, there is a simple solution...if we insist on no sharia law being used in our country, only constitutional law, then the muslims who are westernized and want to assimilate into our culture will accept that and stay here...the muslims who are truly devout in their faith will leave and return to countries where they may use sharia law...it is against their religion to live where they cannot observe sharia law. this is our LEGAL way to protect our culture, as provided to us by our constituion, and we had better defend our rights now, as i said, or that future majority will wipe out our culture with nary a shot fired.

[Guest]

Your concerns are well taken. I share those concerns. I do not view the future of Islam and its impact on my descendants with an eminent, elevated state of alarm and panic. Optimistically speaking, I believe so much in our American culture and our way of life that it occurs to me that domestic Muslims who subscribe to rigid Sharia standards will, in time assimilate into our culture and establish reformed Sharia consistent with our Constitutional and statutory standards. This will not be a process without great acrimony, suffering and pain. It may even take the form of a multi-generational progression, but it will occur. We need to keep ourselves informed and we need to be vigilant. I will loan you my rose colored glasses if you need them. Be of good cheer and have fun in the Villages.

You mean like Native Americans did? My experiences with Tribal Courts over the years is that these folks have their own way of deciding issues.

There are enough of the Muslim population hell bent on following the dictates of their militant leaders; and that does greatly concern me just as did the Black Panthers or the white supremist. However the Muslim movement is an entirely different thing. If you want to view the future just look across the pond.

I referenced Scientologist and Wiccans because in many peoples view they are faux religion hiding under the guise and protection of religion giving them the ability to gain protection under the US Constitution. I do not desire to engage in a debate regarding these enities but only opine. It will be left to others to draw their own conclusions.

I also wish that when people gingerly raise the issue of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church they remain open enough to include other religions, Universities, Boy/Girl Scouts of America, Day Care Centers, etc the Catholic Church does not have a corner on this market.

Finally I keep repeating that we are a nation of laws and as such are at the advantage or disadvantage of dealing with the encroachment of Muslims and their laws upon this nation based upon this nation's laws. Some may be right and it will all come down to being just too emotional about this issue. But then, I wonder if that is what the Europeans believed too? By the way a key factor in this puzzle rests with our Immigration Policy. Some nations have simply refused any additional immigrants. What will our leaders do????

[Guest]

It's a bit of a hot button of mine and I should fully explain.

Most people seem to think that the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of *a* religion". The meaning being that there would be no 'official' religion as there was (and is) in Great Britain.

But that's not what it says. In the misinterpreted version, they think that "establishment" is a verb, and in "to establish". It's a noun.

A church is a religious establishment. A pub could be called an alcohol establishment. In that context, "establishment of religion" is everything from a church to religious schools. It's one of the reasons churches don't pay property taxes.

One of the original reasons for that clause were the kinds of laws that were seen in Great Britain that might have said "no Irish Catholic could be recognised as a lawyer". It says the state will not 'respect' one religion or any religious establishment over another.

This is also why challenges to things like nativity scenes are ripe for misinterpretation. SOme town bans the nativity scene and suddenly the hue and cry is either "war on religion" or "no Christmas". What that really turns out to be are wimpy town officials since the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that you CAN have religious displays on public grounds but that you cannot discriminate. It means you can have your nativity scene so long as you allow a menorah, should someone ask to put one up.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the wimpy officials!
I also think that it prohibits the establishment of an official religion for the country.

[Guest]

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the wimpy officials!
I also think that it prohibits the establishment of an official religion for the country.

Yes, you are correct in that the clause prohibits an 'official' religion. It's the common misinterpretation that it stops there.

I find it ironic that the original intent of the 'wall of separation' that was later described by Jefferson, described protecting the CHURCH from the STATE (I'm guessing to prevent a King Henry VIII-like 'reformation' or something like that). Nowadays it has to be used to protect the STATE from the CHURCH.

[Guest]

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/27/chicago-man-kills-5-family-members-that-refused-to-convert-to-islam/

[Guest]

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/27/chicago-man-kills-5-family-members-that-refused-to-convert-to-islam/

Didn't even look at the link....but I bet you are a fan of Lowe's. :cus:

[Guest]

Didn't even look at the link....but I bet you are a fan of Lowe's. :cus:

Dale...really...you should "look at the links" before you comment.

This is the headline of the link that Katz posted:

Chicago Man Kills 5 Family Members that Refused to Convert to Islam

He killed his mother, his pregnant wife, his infant son and two nieces because they would not convert. He was from Madison, Wisconsin.

:cus::cus::cus:

[Guest]

djp....men rape children...it just so happens some of those MEN happen to be priests! Just as they are found in almost any statistical group one would want to investigate.

btk

[Guest]

:agree:

:agree:

[Guest]

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/27/chicago-man-kills-5-family-members-that-refused-to-convert-to-islam/
This man CONVERTED to Islam --
I live in Miami --we have had individuals who are Christians, Hispanics, Haitians, Jews, etc. Kill loved ones for any number of reasons --it had to do mire with their mental health than with their religion

[Guest]

This man CONVERTED to Islam --
I live in Miami --we have had individuals who are Christians, Hispanics, Haitians, Jews, etc. Kill loved ones for any number of reasons --it had to do mire with their mental health than with their religion

Muslims who kill people who won't convert to Islam is a symptom of a mental health disorder? Really? Are you really saying that? It's not fanatic religiosity that's the cause?

It brings to mind the President's decision to classify the mass killings of soldier's in Ft. Hood, Texas, by a Muslim officer as "work place violence".

The rose colored glasses do not make you see better.

[Guest]

I kind of agree with Richie on this one. Workplace violence is definitely the wrong phrasing of the Fort Hood killings. That is domestic terrorism - plain and simple. That Army major should be either locked away for the rest of his life or executed quickly.

As for a man killing his family because they would not convert to Islam. There are lots of crazies who do kill members of their families for "religious" reasons. These people are mentally off anyhow and their fanatical beliefs propel them to the killings. It might be Islam, Jim Jones, ultra-fundamentalist Baptist, or others. Look at the ones who handle snakes or will not seek a doctor's assistance, or have 15 wives who may be children. Too many crazies with religioius overtones.

[Guest]

Dale...really...you should "look at the links" before you comment.

This is the headline of the link that Katz posted:

Chicago Man Kills 5 Family Members that Refused to Convert to Islam

He killed his mother, his pregnant wife, his infant son and two nieces because they would not convert. He was from Madison, Wisconsin.

:cus::cus::cus:

Didn't need to. I knew it was some kind of profiling and indictment of Muslims. I've come to expect it from certain folks on here. :cus:

[Guest]

Didn't need to. I knew it was some kind of profiling and indictment of Muslims. I've come to expect it from certain folks on here. :cus:

How do you react to a Muslim killing his family because they reject Islamic conversion?

It's profiling to notice a religion that demands the deaths of non-believers?

A man, who by following the teaching of his Islamic religion, kills his family is then judged to be "crazy"?

Knowing the facts of these Islamic teachings and speaking about them is now considered an "indictment" of Muslims?

Again, the rose colored glasses do not improve vision.

[Guest]

"Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me."

"John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation."

"This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

"Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged."

[Guest]

This man CONVERTED to Islam --
I live in Miami --we have had individuals who are Christians, Hispanics, Haitians, Jews, etc. Kill loved ones for any number of reasons --it had to do mire with their mental health than with their religion

You missed the point. If this was done in a Muslim country it would neither be the actions of a crazy man nor would he be found guilty of a crime. Lets not let these primitive beliefs get a foot hold in this Christian nation.

[Guest]

"Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me."

"John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation."

"This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

"Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged."Good history. But it seems to leave open the question of why the Supreme Court--which even after Barack Obama's appointments is still a conservative majority--seem to be ruling in favor of those that oppose the imbedding of Christianity into our government and culture.

Your history is clearcut. But what happened that permitted recent rulings by the Court which seem to overturn those ideas? Didn't the founding fathers get all the words right when they wrote the Constitution? I can't think of another reason why a Constitutionally conservative Court will rule as they have.

[Guest]

You missed the point. If this was done in a Muslim country it would neither be the actions of a crazy man nor would he be found guilty of a crime. Lets not let these primitive beliefs get a foot hold in this Christian nation.

Well said my friend! :bigbow:

[Guest]

How do you react to a Muslim killing his family because they reject Islamic conversion?

It's profiling to notice a religion that demands the deaths of non-believers?

A man, who by following the teaching of his Islamic religion, kills his family is then judged to be "crazy"?

Knowing the facts of these Islamic teachings and speaking about them is now considered an "indictment" of Muslims?

Again, the rose colored glasses do not improve vision.

Missed the point entirely Richie. :cus:

[Guest]

Missed the point entirely Richie. :cus:

I guess your point was a little too vague.

[Guest]

All the talk of being a Christian nation - where does that leave the non-Christians? I am not talking about Muslims who have a bad reputation but how about those of the Jewish faith and culture? What about Native Americans who are not Christian? How about an atheist? Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroastrstrims, Wiccans, Hindu, etc? Do they have a vote or are they allowed to be elected to public office?

Remember that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written over 200 years ago. With the exception of a few Jews (maybe) there were only Christians in the USA. I am sure none of the founding fathers ever heard of a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Wiccan. Things evolve over time and must be compensated for in the process.

You can talk of religious tolerance in America but the true history does not show the religious tolerance. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html

[Guest]

I guess your point was a little too vague.

Always have been kind of a vagrant. :cus:

[Guest]

All the talk of being a Christian nation - where does that leave the non-Christians? I am not talking about Muslims who have a bad reputation but how about those of the Jewish faith and culture? What about Native Americans who are not Christian? How about an atheist? Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroastrstrims, Wiccans, Hindu, etc? Do they have a vote or are they allowed to be elected to public office?

Remember that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written over 200 years ago. With the exception of a few Jews (maybe) there were only Christians in the USA. I am sure none of the founding fathers ever heard of a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Wiccan. Things evolve over time and must be compensated for in the process.

You can talk of religious tolerance in America but the true history does not show the religious tolerance. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html

I very honestly am getting very tired of the United States being called a Christian nation. That is not entirely true. What is true, is that we were founded on Judeo Christian principles. The 10 Commandments. Things like that.

We harbor no resentment toward other religions that do not harbor resentment against us. Our Constitution says that we shall not establish a state religion. It says that we have freedom of religion. It does not say nor was it ever intended to say that we were guaranteed freedom from religion.

I'm tired of hearing people whine and moan and groan that we are unfair to other religions. There is no place in the world that has three religious freedom that this country was founded upon.

Just my two cents

[Guest]

thank you dklassen and village II for two very good posts.

[Guest]

All the talk of being a Christian nation - where does that leave the non-Christians? I am not talking about Muslims who have a bad reputation but how about those of the Jewish faith and culture? What about Native Americans who are not Christian? How about an atheist? Buddhist, Shinto, Zoroastrstrims, Wiccans, Hindu, etc? Do they have a vote or are they allowed to be elected to public office?

Remember that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written over 200 years ago. With the exception of a few Jews (maybe) there were only Christians in the USA. I am sure none of the founding fathers ever heard of a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Wiccan. Things evolve over time and must be compensated for in the process.

You can talk of religious tolerance in America but the true history does not show the religious tolerance. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-True-History-of-Religious-Tolerance.html

Islam began in about 700AD, Buddhism and Hinduism began about 500BC...so were our founding fathers not aware of these religions? hmmmm...I think not. These were men well versed in the history of Europe. For starters, the Crusades were fought to defend Europe from Islamic domination, so i am pretty sure that they were well acquainted with what the Muslim's are all about.

[Guest]

John Jay's quote? Umm.. You're missing part of it.


In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."


Since we HAVE started wars, I think that would disqualify us from Jay's idea of being a true Christian nation.

Buggyone: You are *very* wrong. Thomas Jefferson himself was working on a translation of the Koran. Remember the flak that Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) got for taking hsi oath on a Koran? It was *Jefferson's* Koran that he specifically asked to borrow from the Library of Congress. So the Founders DID have knowledge of Islam.

How about a quote of his from "Notes on the State of Virgina - 1782":

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

[Guest]

While doing a bit of research for my previous post, I ran across something else that kinda turned my stomach.

I was looking for something appropriate to respond to the link about a muslim killing 5 family members because they didn't convert. I ran across plenty of articles about Christian serial killers..

Then I found this page: WARNING - it's not pleasant. No graphic images or anything like that - it's a forum so it's just words.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=28839

This is an example of Christianity that turns my stomach. My wife is sleeping right now but I've talked to her about those types of preachers and she, who is VERY Christian, doesn't care for them in the least.

The gist of the thread is how Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven. The very first line above a picture of Dahmer in an orange prison suit is:

"In Memory of our Loving Christian Brother
Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer
1960 - 1994"

The author is Reverend Jim Osbourne, "True Christian Televangelist", "Director of Fundraising and Tithing" and his avatar has next to it "On the lookout for wife #6".

I don't know what was scarier - this guy or "Nobar King's" response:


Rev. Jim, I find it difficult to accept Jeffery Dahmer into the brotherhood of True Christians, but if you say that he's OK, I'll believe you. We Christians need to stick together in order to maintain the strength of our faith.


Of course, Rev. Jim gave no proof of Dahmer's cellblock conversion.

He says Dahmer was no longer gay in prison and that he attended Bible study. You know, 'officially' gay sex doesn't happen in prisons but everyone from a warden to Tim Allen will tell you otherwise.

Here's another quote from Iowa's Reverend Jim later in the thread:


All of Dahmer's victims were unsaved trash. While what he did in itself was wrong, we can console ourselves by knowing he was removing homosexuals from society. Don't forget also that most of his victims were godless negroes or budda-worshipping chinks.


You ask about people who justify murdering abortion clinic bombers or praise abortion doctor assasins? THIS guy is one of them.

I'm tempted to say thank god most Christians are NOT like this!!! I mean, no matter how much I might disagree with some of the members on this board, I don't think *ANY* of them are at the lunacy level of this guy. Not even CLOSE.

But, for those of you arch-conservatives who wonder why some are afraid of Christianity or mistrustful? THIS guy is certainly an example.

[Guest]

Difference is that Christianity's official doctrines do not support what these so called Christians did. Islam has conversion or death as a major doctrine. Read the Quaran...

[Guest]

Difference is that Christianity's official doctrines do not support what these so called Christians did. Islam has conversion or death as a major doctrine. Read the Quaran...

Exactly right.

[Guest]

Have either of you read the entire Koran or are you taking someone's viewpoint of a portion as your standing? It probably needs to be completely read and studied before making a blanket statement.

Remember the Old Testament of the Bible had God being a vengeful force and the New Testament has God being a merciful being.

Remember also some of the things done in Christian's names. There was the Spanish Inquisition where you either had to convert to Catholicism or be tortured to death. The Crusades are another example. The religious (Christian) intolerance in the early colonies in America where supposed witches were drowned or burned. St. Joan of Orleans was burned as a witch in the name of Christianity.

[Guest]

Have either of you read the entire Koran or are you taking someone's viewpoint of a portion as your standing? It probably needs to be completely read and studied before making a blanket statement.

Remember the Old Testament of the Bible had God being a vengeful force and the New Testament has God being a merciful being.

Remember also some of the things done in Christian's names. There was the Spanish Inquisition where you either had to convert to Catholicism or be tortured to death. The Crusades are another example. The religious (Christian) intolerance in the early colonies in America where supposed witches were drowned or burned. St. Joan of Orleans was burned as a witch in the name of Christianity.

We're living in the present, Buggy. Save your history lesson for another thread. In the world of the present Katz is exactly right. Islam preaches death to unbelievers, in the present. Christianity does not, but preaches to love your enemies. Come to the present, Buggy.

[Guest]

While I have not read the either Bible or the Quaran in their entirety, I have read most of both...Why wouldn't I? How else would one make an informed choice to follow or not? I also would hesitate to speak about something that I had not learned about. The message of the Bible is grace and mercy and freedom to choose/or not choose God's love. The message in the Quaran is submission or death, conversion or death, you get the idea. Islam means "voluntary submission to Allah" but knowing the alternative, I am not sure how voluntary that submission is...
Richielion says it best=Islam preaches death to unbelievers, in the present. Christianity does not, but preaches to love your enemies.

[Guest]

I for one have read the Koran completely several times. It is what it is and Muslims are what they are. Good Muslims if they follow the Koran and the several hadith which I've also read, feel compelled by their God who by the way it's supposed to be a God of Abraham to convert us to Islam or kill us.

They believe that to die while killing a Jew will get into heaven with great rewards of milk honey and black-eyed virgins. 72 of them nonetheless.

It is not the average lousy Moslem that we need to fear is the "good Muslim"that scares the hell out of me.

Just some thoughts

[Guest]

I for one have read the Koran completely several times. It is what it is and Muslims are what they are. Good Muslims if they follow the Koran and the several hadith which I've also read, feel compelled by their God who by the way it's supposed to be a God of Abraham to convert us to Islam or kill us.

They believe that to die while killing a Jew will get into heaven with great rewards of milk honey and black-eyed virgins. 72 of them nonetheless.

It is not the average lousy Moslem that we need to fear is the "good Muslim"that scares the hell out of me.

Just some thoughts

In the mind of a true Muslim:::::::
If you select FREEDOM OF RELIGION YOU DIE
If you practice FREEDOM OF SPEACH YOU DIE
If you are a WOMEN and not submissive YOU DIE

Wake up America.

[Guest]

Katx, Richie: You *are* aware that it's many of St. Paul's writings that so-called Christians use to justify their hate and violence, yes?

There's a bumper sticker out there that I rather like.

"I love Jesus too - it's some of his fan club that scares me".

[Guest]

In the mind of a true Muslim:::::::
If you select FREEDOM OF RELIGION YOU DIE
If you practice FREEDOM OF SPEACH YOU DIE
If you are a WOMEN and not submissive YOU DIE

Wake up America.

Odd how no Muslim I've ever met espoused those views.

[Guest]

Katx, Richie: You *are* aware that it's many of St. Paul's writings that so-called Christians use to justify their hate and violence, yes?

Are you referring to the writings of St. Paul, Paul the Apostle before his coversion to Christianity or after?

[Guest]

Odd how no Muslim I've ever met espoused those views.

Interesting how your initial reaction to seemingly all these conversations concerning Christianity and Islam, is to challenge the Christian, but defend the Islamist teachings.

Do you or do you not agree that the current teachings of Christianity do not demand the conversion of, or death of if refused, adherence to it's edicts as the current and present teachings of Islam?

You have Muslim friends who say they wouldn't kill you even though their practiced religion teaches it? How nice; who else do they speak for?

[Guest]

Sorry, Richie, I know my reaction makes it look that way.

Yes, of course there are Islamic teachers inculcating hatred.

There are also so-called Christians doing the same thing.

Of course it's simple reality to note that the percentage of Islamists doing that (compared to the general population) is much higher than Christians.

It is also my OPINION that Islam is about 700 years behind Chistianity in 'maturing' - and by that I mean 'growing up' and doing things like policing their own. Christianity got a head start, if you take my meaning. 700 years ago, Christianity bore little resemblance to what is known and accepted today.

I'll be honest and admit I have no Musling *friends*, though I worked with many up until a few years ago and have one or two workplace acquaintences here.

That being said, the only person who said he wanted to kill my ex-wife on religious grounds was a Christian who ran a Christian BBS (called The Nor'Easter) in Londonderry NH back in the early 1990s. She has received no such threats from any Muslim. He quotes the Biblical passage "Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live" (Exodus 22:18)

I *really* wish I was making that up.

Just to be sure - I'm not defending Islamist teachings. I'm defending the majority of Muslims (at least in this country) who do not practice said teachings.

[Guest]

I'm curious, what would the (seemingly) anti-Muslim among you do to/with the 6+ million Muslims in the U.S.? What would you hope to see happen to these people?

[Guest]

...and to just tack on to Old Coach Ed's post - what would you propose doing if a sizable bloc (let's say 2,000) Muslims bought land adjacent to The Villages on 466A, built homes, built an Islamic school, and a good sized mosque? They then decide to come to Lake Sumter Landing just about every night for the evening entertainment as a group. How welcome would you make them feel?

[Guest]

Sorry, Richie, I know my reaction makes it look that way.

Yes, of course there are Islamic teachers inculcating hatred.

There are also so-called Christians doing the same thing.

Of course it's simple reality to note that the percentage of Islamists doing that (compared to the general population) is much higher than Christians.

It is also my OPINION that Islam is about 700 years behind Chistianity in 'maturing' - and by that I mean 'growing up' and doing things like policing their own. Christianity got a head start, if you take my meaning. 700 years ago, Christianity bore little resemblance to what is known and accepted today.

I'll be honest and admit I have no Musling *friends*, though I worked with many up until a few years ago and have one or two workplace acquaintences here.

That being said, the only person who said he wanted to kill my ex-wife on religious grounds was a Christian who ran a Christian BBS (called The Nor'Easter) in Londonderry NH back in the early 1990s. She has received no such threats from any Muslim. He quotes the Biblical passage "Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live" (Exodus 22:18)

I *really* wish I was making that up.

Just to be sure - I'm not defending Islamist teachings. I'm defending the majority of Muslims (at least in this country) who do not practice said teachings.

You still won't seriously address the question that's the elephant in the room. Why are you avoiding it.

Which religion is teaching conversion of faith or death in the present world, by edict of it's holiest book and the words of it's most eminent leaders?

Is that religion Islam or Christianity.

You say the majority of Muslims do not practice the teachings, but do they REJECT them? Do they SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM?

I guarantee you they do not. The majority of Muslims in this country think we brought 9/11 on ourselves.

Your "friends" may not kill you, but they'll be understanding of those who do.

[Guest]

Who's speaking out? Well, you won't find it on the networks - you have to look for it.

Try this:

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition opposes enforcing sharia law:

http://americanislamicleadership.org/AILC_Response_MI

More mainstream muslims speaking out:

http://www.newsmax.com/Emerson/muslimsgroundzeromosque/2010/10/04/id/372430

A video that Right Wing News thinks should get more airplay:

http://rightwingnews.com/religion/9-american-muslims-speak-out-against-violence-in-the-name-of-islam/

But it's not like Islam has a monopoly on this kind of stuff. The Catholic church won't police it's own but at least they're "down" to raping children as opposed to burning Jews or anyone who pointed at a woman and screamed "witch!". Remember what I said about feeling like Islam is 700 years behind Christianity in maturation? Again, just a personal opinion.

Mind you, the Bible is FULL of verses preaching extermination. I read through all of Leviticus in one setting and I felt like I needed to shower for a month afterwards.

But to get to one of your other points...

Check out this poll on American Muslims - it seems to contradict your opinion that the majority of Muslims think we brought 9/11 on ourselves. While not directly mentioning 9/11 (it was about terrorist attacks on civilians in general) the article said:


At least 7 in 10 American adults from all major religious groups agree that these attacks are never justified, but Muslim Americans again are most opposed, with 89% rejecting such attacks.

[Guest]

I really would like to know your attitudes on the posting of Old Coach Ed who asked what you would like done with the 6 million Muslims in the US and also on what I posted regarding how you would welcome a Muslim community next to The Villages.

[Guest]

Who's speaking out? Well, you won't find it on the networks - you have to look for it.

Try this:

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition opposes enforcing sharia law:

http://americanislamicleadership.org/AILC_Response_MI

More mainstream muslims speaking out:

http://www.newsmax.com/Emerson/muslimsgroundzeromosque/2010/10/04/id/372430

A video that Right Wing News thinks should get more airplay:

http://rightwingnews.com/religion/9-american-muslims-speak-out-against-violence-in-the-name-of-islam/

But it's not like Islam has a monopoly on this kind of stuff. The Catholic church won't police it's own but at least they're "down" to raping children as opposed to burning Jews or anyone who pointed at a woman and screamed "witch!". Remember what I said about feeling like Islam is 700 years behind Christianity in maturation? Again, just a personal opinion.

Mind you, the Bible is FULL of verses preaching extermination. I read through all of Leviticus in one setting and I felt like I needed to shower for a month afterwards.

But to get to one of your other points...

Check out this poll on American Muslims - it seems to contradict your opinion that the majority of Muslims think we brought 9/11 on ourselves. While not directly mentioning 9/11 (it was about terrorist attacks on civilians in general) the article said:


I'm done. I can't debate someone who won't face the question at hand.

[Guest]

I really would like to know your attitudes on the posting of Old Coach Ed who asked what you would like done with the 6 million Muslims in the US and also on what I posted regarding how you would welcome a Muslim community next to The Villages.

What do YOU think? Are you OK with a movement that is designed to bring your country down to ashes? Are you respecting that religion that teaches that the greatest glory is to die while killing YOU?

What is God's name is your point?

[Guest]

What do YOU think? Are you OK with a movement that is designed to bring your country down to ashes? Are you respecting that religion that teaches that the greatest glory is to die while killing YOU?

What is God's name is your point?

It is called a straw man, Richie.

[Guest]

Odd how no Muslim I've ever met espoused those views.

You need to get out more.

Lets not kid ourselves, Muslims are raised and taught from an early age to be infidel killers. Christians are infidels in the eyes and minds of all Muslims that follow the Islamic faith. You cannot spin this and be serious.

[Guest]

Really? So you and Richie are simply calling all those other polls, the statements I linked to and the people I've met a grand conspiracy of liars and plotters?

Just to make sure... Richie, you said I was dodging the question - the matter at hand about Muslims. I pointed you to several links - the poll indicating that *American* Muslims are even more fervently anti-violence than other religious denominations, for one. I pointed you to people who ARE speaking out against the violence and hatred.

You choose to ignore those?

Why is it that you rail against the "lame-stream media" when it's one of your oxes being gored - a message you (and other conservatives) want to get out in the public. Yet, if it's a message that runs counter to your opinions, you dismiss it out of hand.

I would think that, having pointed out the exact kind of people you SEEM to want to hear from - Muslims decrying violence and rejecting hatred, you would be EAGER to highlight them.

It would be as if someone was claiming that Christians were war-mongering and genocidal and quoting passages from Leviticus as 'proof'. You can't name very many Christian preachers or pastors who are TODAY talking about Leviticus being a bit out of date. It's just naturally assumed. If you PRESS an individual Christian, they'll tell you that Jesus forged a new covenant. But it's not what you see in the papers every day.

Now, if you're talking about Muslims *overseas*, well, you have a better argument. But I just pointed you to information that speaks heavily to those who are on our shores now.

[Guest]

They can convince me they are peaceful and will not kill if they Convert to Christianity.

ALL kidding aside, they are dangerous heathens with one mission: KILL ALL NON MUSLIMS.

[Guest]

How do you tell a moderate muslim? He's the one out of ammunition.

[Guest]

So, if I hear you correctly, if a significant group of Muslims moved into the area and decided to frequent the restaurants and entertainment of The Villages on a regular basis, you would "discourage" them from doing so?

[Guest]

So, if I hear you correctly, if a significant group of Muslims moved into the area and decided to frequent the restaurants and entertainment of The Villages on a regular basis, you would "discourage" them from doing so?

I absolutely would and if they came in their desert costumes, I would get up and leave.

[Guest]

Really? So you and Richie are simply calling all those other polls, the statements I linked to and the people I've met a grand conspiracy of liars and plotters?

Just to make sure... Richie, you said I was dodging the question - the matter at hand about Muslims. I pointed you to several links - the poll indicating that *American* Muslims are even more fervently anti-violence than other religious denominations, for one. I pointed you to people who ARE speaking out against the violence and hatred.

You choose to ignore those?

Why is it that you rail against the "lame-stream media" when it's one of your oxes being gored - a message you (and other conservatives) want to get out in the public. Yet, if it's a message that runs counter to your opinions, you dismiss it out of hand.

I would think that, having pointed out the exact kind of people you SEEM to want to hear from - Muslims decrying violence and rejecting hatred, you would be EAGER to highlight them.

It would be as if someone was claiming that Christians were war-mongering and genocidal and quoting passages from Leviticus as 'proof'. You can't name very many Christian preachers or pastors who are TODAY talking about Leviticus being a bit out of date. It's just naturally assumed. If you PRESS an individual Christian, they'll tell you that Jesus forged a new covenant. But it's not what you see in the papers every day.

Now, if you're talking about Muslims *overseas*, well, you have a better argument. But I just pointed you to information that speaks heavily to those who are on our shores now.

The Muslims you link are a bit encouraging but far, far from the mainstream of American influence. The only Muslim group that our major media (lamestream media; thank you very much) supplicates to is CAIR. Do you want to defend the works and policy points of the most influential group of Muslims in our country, who's leaders have even been feted by the Obama Administration.

You pick obscure representatives of the Muslim community to represent your view that American Muslims are the same as you and me, and then you use obscure Christian representatives to "advance" your view that Christianity does indeed promote violence.

I may be reading a little too much into what you doing here, but I don't think by a lot.

Islam is the biggest threat to the safety of freedom loving peoples on the globe. We can ignore it at our peril.

Remember the bullies in school. Did ignoring them or placating them diminish the bullied's problems, or escalate the abuse? Think about it.

[Guest]

the muslims you link are a bit encouraging but far, far from the mainstream of american influence. The only muslim group that our major media (lamestream media; thank you very much) supplicates to is cair. Do you want to defend the works and policy points of the most influential group of muslims in our country, who's leaders have even been feted by the obama administration.

You pick obscure representatives of the muslim community to represent your view that american muslims are the same as you and me, and then you use obscure christian representatives to "advance" your view that christianity does indeed promote violence.

I may be reading a little too much into what you doing here, but i don't think by a lot.

islam is the biggest threat to the safety of freedom loving peoples on the globe. We can ignore it at our peril.
remember the bullies in school. Did ignoring them or placating them diminish the bullied's problems, or escalate the abuse? Think about it.

correct.......

[Guest]

Richie: I'll certainly agree with you that *overseas* Islam may be the greatest threat to freedom. But the links I provided showed a *nationwide* poll of American Muslims disavowing violence - IN SOME CASES THEY WERE THE MOST ANTI-VIOLENCE OF *ANY* MAJOR RELIGION.

Now I'll ask you - and to be honest I think you might agree with me here - why do you think that Islam is such a threat overseas? In my opinion, it's something I noticed in the 1980s when Beirut was turning into rubble. I forget who it was who authored the article I was reading back then but the gist was as follows.

"Over there", there's nothing BUT religion. There's nothing to take people's minds off of it. There's no economic success. There's no hope for class mobility. It's as though things are so destitute elsewhere that people have "given up" on this life and figure there's nothing to live for except the next one. Radical clerics seize on this, just like cult leaders in this country prey on the lonely and disaffected.

In today's terms, it's why Europe, by and large, doesn't have a problem with religion *except from recent immigrants* who still seem to have the "old" mindset.

It would also be a good argument as to what REALLY solved the Irish "troubles". The "Celtic Tiger" boom years seemed to coincide with agreements being signed to settle the violence. Only when the economy tanked did some rumblings come up again (I was in Ireland on our honeymoon when they went through their teeth-gnashing over what the bank bailouts would be in 2010 and I was reading about this in their newspapers)

So, Richie, I think I can find the following common ground with you. For one, keep the f'ing radical clerics *OUT*. They can keep their "live for death" mantra back in the catboxes where they came from. Secondly, economic freedom can cure religious fundamentalism - it's harder (though not impossible) to recruit people when they have a hopeful outlook.

[Guest]

The tolerance being displayed here is mindboggling. :cus:

[Guest]

There is alot of talk about the "good" Muslims. Are any of you aware that Islam teaches that deception and lies and false friendships are encouraged when dealing with infidels?

[Guest]

Katz,

In an earlier thread, you said, " I work with a physician whose name is William Davis. I also work with medical assistant whose name is Chantelle Robinson. I also work with another physician whose name is Todd Smith. Care to guess who is the Muslim, who is the AfricanAmerican, and who is the Caucasian? In the medical world where I have spent the last 30+ years, we know no race, color, ethnicity, religion. One is either there to heal or be healed and we are all humans both inside and out."

Does the "good" Muslim you work with practice deception, lies, and false friendships with you and the others in your medical facility?

[Guest]

Richie: I'll certainly agree with you that *overseas* Islam may be the greatest threat to freedom. But the links I provided showed a *nationwide* poll of American Muslims disavowing violence - IN SOME CASES THEY WERE THE MOST ANTI-VIOLENCE OF *ANY* MAJOR RELIGION.

Now I'll ask you - and to be honest I think you might agree with me here - why do you think that Islam is such a threat overseas? In my opinion, it's something I noticed in the 1980s when Beirut was turning into rubble. I forget who it was who authored the article I was reading back then but the gist was as follows.

"Over there", there's nothing BUT religion. There's nothing to take people's minds off of it. There's no economic success. There's no hope for class mobility. It's as though things are so destitute elsewhere that people have "given up" on this life and figure there's nothing to live for except the next one. Radical clerics seize on this, just like cult leaders in this country prey on the lonely and disaffected.

In today's terms, it's why Europe, by and large, doesn't have a problem with religion *except from recent immigrants* who still seem to have the "old" mindset.

It would also be a good argument as to what REALLY solved the Irish "troubles". The "Celtic Tiger" boom years seemed to coincide with agreements being signed to settle the violence. Only when the economy tanked did some rumblings come up again (I was in Ireland on our honeymoon when they went through their teeth-gnashing over what the bank bailouts would be in 2010 and I was reading about this in their newspapers)

So, Richie, I think I can find the following common ground with you. For one, keep the f'ing radical clerics *OUT*. They can keep their "live for death" mantra back in the catboxes where they came from. Secondly, economic freedom can cure religious fundamentalism - it's harder (though not impossible) to recruit people when they have a hopeful outlook.

I understand what you're saying but that doesn't explain the 9/11 terrorists who lived along side us for an extended time and still felt it was their obligation to sacrifice their own lives in order to strike a blow for Islam.

It doesn't explain an Islamist and senior officer of our military committing the massacre of his fellow soldiers in the name of Islam after living alongside them and knowing their fellowship for many years.

There are many more examples of these people who live, or lived, among us and did not "lose their true faith".

You don't have to delve deep into the teachings of Islam, as you must do with Christianity, to find evidence of religious directives to smite those who refuse to submit to the tenants of the faith. Everyone who speaks honestly about Islam knows that the teaching is that the latter verses supersede and correct earlier verses. These later verses proscribe the conversion or death of all nonbelievers. Their most honored clerics shout these edicts from the highest platforms of their places of worship, and teach their children these lessons in their schools, or madrasah as they are called.

Still, we have those in the civilized world who don't believe they mean what they say, or that they can't possibly be speaking for the majority of their faith.

I know for those who believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ it is difficult to believe that a major religion would seriously be built on the premise of the literal destruction of all those who refuse it's call. I hope you're right that their is real dissension in this country that has a chance of changing the prevailing teaching in Islam. I guess we Christians can only pray for this.

[Guest]

My point is that I can find a Tim McVeigh just as easily as I can find a Mohammed Atta. *Examples* are easy to find and, let's face it, the news specializes in catering to our fears and sensationalizing things.

I certianly agree that there are those who act as moles. They're brainwashed and there's almost nothing (to my knowledge) that you can do to change that without direct intervention.

I don't have to delve deep into Christianity to find violence - the Old Testament is LOADED with it. Massacres of every man woman and child just because they're a different tribe? It's all there.

Christianity has co-existed with secular society for a while now. It's had time to 'grow up'. But that's THIS country. There were Christians bombing Christians in Ireland until just a few years ago. 15,000 were killed by Christians in Lebanon in one massacre where the Israelis stood by and watched.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that it is our economic success that "puts religion in it's place" - and that place is in the heart between a person and whatever God they worship.

Where do all these radicals come from? They come from places where they never hear the phrase "the street is being torn up for sewer construction" or something similar.

I *do* agree that moderate muslims need to get the word out MORE and certainly in a LOUDER way. It's easy for ME to find plenty of it with some Google-fu skills but Joe Sixpack needs to hear it as does everyone else.

[Guest]

Katz,

In an earlier thread, you said, " I work with a physician whose name is William Davis. I also work with medical assistant whose name is Chantelle Robinson. I also work with another physician whose name is Todd Smith. Care to guess who is the Muslim, who is the AfricanAmerican, and who is the Caucasian? In the medical world where I have spent the last 30+ years, we know no race, color, ethnicity, religion. One is either there to heal or be healed and we are all humans both inside and out."

Does the "good" Muslim you work with practice deception, lies, and false friendships with you and the others in your medical facility?

Personally I tend to hope and expect the best of people. Whether the "good" Muslim practices lies and deceptions and false friendships? I cannot answer that. Not sure that I truly want to know, nor do I know for sure how I would be able to tell...Who am I to judge another man's heart?
I have seen them heal those of other races and religion...However, this does not preclude them from practicing lies, deceptions and forming false friendships. I stand by the former and the later comments.

[Guest]

My point is that I can find a Tim McVeigh just as easily as I can find a Mohammed Atta. *Examples* are easy to find and, let's face it, the news specializes in catering to our fears and sensationalizing things.

I certianly agree that there are those who act as moles. They're brainwashed and there's almost nothing (to my knowledge) that you can do to change that without direct intervention.

I don't have to delve deep into Christianity to find violence - the Old Testament is LOADED with it. Massacres of every man woman and child just because they're a different tribe? It's all there.

Christianity has co-existed with secular society for a while now. It's had time to 'grow up'. But that's THIS country. There were Christians bombing Christians in Ireland until just a few years ago. 15,000 were killed by Christians in Lebanon in one massacre where the Israelis stood by and watched.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that it is our economic success that "puts religion in it's place" - and that place is in the heart between a person and whatever God they worship.

Where do all these radicals come from? They come from places where they never hear the phrase "the street is being torn up for sewer construction" or something similar.

I *do* agree that moderate muslims need to get the word out MORE and certainly in a LOUDER way. It's easy for ME to find plenty of it with some Google-fu skills but Joe Sixpack needs to hear it as does everyone else.

All evidence of the vile acts of Islamists all over the world contradict your words. I'm sorry but it's a fact.

In all your posts you refuse to acknowledge that the Islamist call for the death of infidels is a primary tenet of their religion and their Iman's teachings IN THE PRESENT.

Nowhere in PRESENT DAY CHRISTIANITY can you say this is true. If you do say this you are outright misrepresenting Christianity, or in other words, lying. I'm not sure for what reason.

[Guest]

I have a few liberal links in my DNA, but not on this issue. The monetary debt we are leaving our children is not half as devastating as the Islamic threat if left un-attended to. I am stunned to see the posts in this thread that feel little or no danger from the increase in Muslims in the USA.

[Guest]

I agree with Villager II...I find little comfort in all the comparison over 100's of years what others did or did not do to justify the CURRENT, clear and present danger.

It is obvious why the "good ones" don't speak out against the radicals and the extremeists...most likely because internally they would be viewed as the "bad ones" and need to be dealt with for their western leanings.

Wait until their numbers approach the mix like they have in France with their open defiance of French law.

They vow to eliminate the USA as we know it....what other motivation do we Americans need to be cautious, prudent and defensive...instead of rationalizing/justifying?

btk

[Guest]

Well, let's just bring it to a simple question. What do you uber-conservatives plan to do with the Muslim population in the United States?

[Guest]

enforce the laws of the land!!! And not knuckle under, as we are for the illegal aliens from Mexico.

And of course the race card and profiling card will be played.

The only positive I see in the future regarding the mix in the USA is I won't be here for when it really goes to hell!!.

btk

[Guest]

While Americans argue on forums, Muslim women are stoned to death for adultery, hands are cut off for stealing, etc,etc under Sharia law in the Middle East. Are we really that blind to not know or care that such could take root and thrive in our country all in the name of religious freedom? Meanwhile, nativity scenes are denied airtime and Merry Christmas is become politically incorrect in exchange for Happy Holidays.
I am with you Billethkid-The only positive I see in the future regarding the mix in the USA is I won't be here for when it really goes to hell!!.
:ohdear:

[Guest]

Even in the areas of the USA where there are large populations of Muslims, there is not the most remote possibility that stoning of women, cutting off hands, etc will ever be permitted as law. If those crimes did take place - even under the guise of Muslim law - state laws would take precedence and those parties that did the crime would be punished.

Where I came from in the Washington DC area, there were Hatians who wanted to raise goats in the city limits and then kill them on altars for religiious ceremonies. They tried to say the prohibition of this was a denial of religious freedom. City council struck it down and on appeal, it was struck down by a circuit court. This was for goat killing - people killing for religious freedom would not even be thought of to be tolerated.

Of course, Bill is right. Laws are to be obeyed by everyone and enforced equally.

[Guest]

enforce the laws of the land!!! And not knuckle under, as we are for the illegal aliens from Mexico.

And of course the race card and profiling card will be played.

The only positive I see in the future regarding the mix in the USA is I won't be here for when it really goes to hell!!.

btk

I woud not be to sure of that. Might happen a lot soon than we think if we don't do something about the current crop of criminals running this country, not only the Executive Branch, but also the legistative and judicial branches that are not following the United States Constitution.

[Guest]

Its here and spreading fast.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/

Just wait till we start having local areas elect Muslims into their police forces and political offices.

Sharia Law is real and no true Muslim will live without it. Sticking flowers into the end of gun barrels will not work for this issue. You will need to bring back those of us that actually fought for this country to drive out this threat.
You cannot negotiate nor compromise with these primitive tribes of Muslims.

Earlier Quote::
What do you uber-conservatives plan to do with the Muslim population in the United States?

THE VILLAGER II reply:::
Just like any cancer, you do whatever it takes to fight the spreading infection.

[Guest]

enforce the laws of the land!!! And not knuckle under, as we are for the illegal aliens from Mexico.

And of course the race card and profiling card will be played.

The only positive I see in the future regarding the mix in the USA is I won't be here for when it really goes to hell!!.

btk

Where oh where is Dr. Kervorkian when ya need him? :cus:

[Guest]

Where oh where is Dr. Kervorkian when ya need him? :cus:

Where are so many heros when we need them. I have lots of Family in the Brainerd, MN area, but they think differently than you do. Was you raised somewhere else?

[Guest]

Where are so many heros when we need them. I have lots of Family in the Brainerd, MN area, but they think differently than you do. Was you raised somewhere else?

Raised in Western Wisconsin but in Brainerd for 40 years now..almost long enough to be called a native. :undecided:

[Guest]

Raised in Western Wisconsin but in Brainerd for 40 years now..almost long enough to be called a native. :undecided:

Most of my realitives are up in Grand Rapids, Bovey and Lake Lawrence.

[Guest]

All evidence of the vile acts of Islamists all over the world contradict your words. I'm sorry but it's a fact.

In all your posts you refuse to acknowledge that the Islamist call for the death of infidels is a primary tenet of their religion and their Iman's teachings IN THE PRESENT.

Nowhere in PRESENT DAY CHRISTIANITY can you say this is true. If you do say this you are outright misrepresenting Christianity, or in other words, lying. I'm not sure for what reason.

Ok, I'll spell it out more plainly.

When it comes to Islam on foreign shores I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. I don't mean to sound sarcastic but did you miss that part?

I was pointing out the differences that seem to be apparent, from the polls, between the vast majority of AMERICAN Muslims and what most people seem to expect.

I am suggesting that there's something about America that can cure sectarian violence. Remember, Christians were killing and bombing each other IN IRELAND until just a few short years ago. Here? Unheard of.

It's why part of me wants to just let that part of the world burn. If that's what they want, let them have it. When they're done killing each other, maybe someone can make something of the place.

The Imams over there are trying to export their verbal feces here and, of course, they find a few disaffected takers. But, by and large, on THESE shores, we've rejected that crap.

[Guest]

But, by and large, on THESE shores, we've rejected that crap.

So are you tell us that you are Muslim? That YOU reject that portion of their believe? Is that what you are trying to tell us. I don't believe that the America Muslims are any different than the Mid-eastern nations that practice the Muslim followings. Death to all that do not bow down to allah and women are property to do with as the MAN wants. Not in my house or my country. If you want to follow those believes go to a country that allows this practice.

[Guest]

Here's is the Cliff Note version of the religion of Christianity...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKk9rv2hUfA

[Guest]

So, Figmo, you actually believe that all Muslims in America are out to kill you and to attack your wife because you will not bow down to allah?

In my made-up scenario of a large community of Muslims moving next to The Villages with a school and mosque - and the Muslims like to come to the entertainment in The Villages - what would you do and how would you treat them?

[Guest]

So, Figmo, you actually believe that all Muslims in America are out to kill you and to attack your wife because you will not bow down to allah?

In my made-up scenario of a large community of Muslims moving next to The Villages with a school and mosque - and the Muslims like to come to the entertainment in The Villages - what would you do and how would you treat them?

They will not be welcomed by me. You need a wake up call on this one Mr one. Muslims that follow their faith to the letter will kill you just because you are not a Muslim. Muslims that do not want to kill Christians and Jews are bad Muslims and will be punished by Allah.

:spoken:

[Guest]

So, Figmo, you actually believe that all Muslims in America are out to kill you and to attack your wife because you will not bow down to allah?

In my made-up scenario of a large community of Muslims moving next to The Villages with a school and mosque - and the Muslims like to come to the entertainment in The Villages - what would you do and how would you treat them?

buggyone, have you read the koran? Makes for interesting reading. Do you not follow what one sect of muslims are doing to the other just because they don't agree on who is who or what.

To answer the bow down question: Yes, even if they have to lie and make friendly to gain your friendship and trust before killing you for not believing in allah. That is in the koran. Yes, even our Judo-Christian religion has some bloody history, but we hvae stopped killing each other here in the United States just because you believe different than I do.

For one thing they would not come as there is alcohol served and if they are GOOD muslims they would not be in a place where alcohol is served and for another what would they think, as GOOD muslims, of the way our ladies dress?

[Guest]

as i said in an earlier post, the way to find the difference between westernized, secular muslims and truly devout muslims, is to totally prohibit any sharia law in this country...devout muslims will leave as they are forbidden to live where they cannot practice sharia...

[Guest]

So, Figmo, you actually believe that all Muslims in America are out to kill you and to attack your wife because you will not bow down to allah?

In my made-up scenario of a large community of Muslims moving next to The Villages with a school and mosque - and the Muslims like to come to the entertainment in The Villages - what would you do and how would you treat them?

The Muslims in American may not kill, but will be understanding, buy and large, of the Muslim who will in accordance with his faith.

I would be uncomfortable if Muslims in traditional dress were to frequent the places that I do.

That's just the way it is.

[Guest]

I find this string pretty amazing.... the fear expressed would be pretty unbelievable if these same things had not already been expressed against other religious groups. When President Kennedy ran in 1960 Catholics were targeted. I believe the phrase used was we were all Papist's. We had large families....with all those children we would become the majority and we were NOT Christian. I couldn't say much about that one I was 1 of 9. We had guns stored in the church basement getting ready for the day we would take over. And Kennedy he was going bring in the Pope to rule. Of course none of it was TRUE.

Most of the people posting in this thread are Christians.....

[Guest]

True or not...you tell me.

"The Arabic school textbooks which show children how to chop off hands and feet under Sharia law"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077658/The-Arabic-textbooks-children-chop-hands-feet-Sharia-law.html#ixzz1heYbocXk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077658/The-Arabic-textbooks-children-chop-hands-feet-Sharia-law.html

[Guest]

I find this string pretty amazing.... the fear expressed would be pretty unbelievable if these same things had not already been expressed against other religious groups. When President Kennedy ran in 1960 Catholics were targeted. I believe the phrase used was we were all Papist's. We had large families....with all those children we would become the majority and we were NOT Christian. I couldn't say much about that one I was 1 of 9. We had guns stored in the church basement getting ready for the day we would take over. And Kennedy he was going bring in the Pope to rule. Of course none of it was TRUE.

Most of the people posting in this thread are Christians.....

I remember it well. Coming from a small college town in Pennsylvania where Catholics were a minority, it was never an issue until that election. Walking with my life-long friends to a Science Fair at the college, my friends started spieling out the hatred that they heard from their parents at home. As a teenager it really shocked me and brought a realization how narrow minded and hateful people can be to make whatever they support look better by making someone or something look worse. It happens here in this forum a lot.

In this same small town we had no blacks or any people of color. When I went into the Navy at 17 years old, I soon found out what real hatred and bigotry was. It remains today in many ways. It sometimes is masked a little better. I'm just saying.....

Xavier

[Guest]

I remember it well. Coming from a small college town in Pennsylvania where Catholics were a minority, it was never an issue until that election. Walking with my life-long friends to a Science Fair at the college, my friends started spieling out the hatred that they heard from their parents at home. As a teenager it really shocked me and brought a realization how narrow minded and hateful people can be to make whatever they support look better by making someone or something look worse. It happens here in this forum a lot.

In this same small town we had no blacks or any people of color. When I went into the Navy at 17 years old, I soon found out what real hatred and bigotry was. It remains today in many ways. It sometimes is masked a little better. I'm just saying.....

Xavier

:agree: I lived in a small town in Northern New Jersey....

[Guest]

True or not...you tell me.

"The Arabic school textbooks which show children how to chop off hands and feet under Sharia law"


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077658/The-Arabic-textbooks-children-chop-hands-feet-Sharia-law.html#ixzz1heYbocXk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077658/The-Arabic-textbooks-children-chop-hands-feet-Sharia-law.html
So doesn't the Bible say these things:

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

[Guest]

Cologal,

Try as one might, you cannot reason with bigotry - and that is exactly what most of this is - just plain ignorance and bigotry.

[Guest]

We could go all the way back to when the cave man dragged his woman around by the hair.

What matters is what is the situation today? Aren't we glad some species of the human race have eveolved to the point we no longer do what was done in days of old in practice or in religious records.

Other members of the human race have "elected" not to evolve from past practice or religious records. And that is fine......... as long as their mission is not to take over other entities/lives of others. And I am not stating that any one or another does or does not. Simply that it exists.

btk

[Guest]

We could go all the way back to when the cave man dragged his woman around by the hair.

What matters is what is the situation today? Aren't we glad some species of the human race have evolved to the point we no longer do what was done in days of old in practice or in religious records.

Other members of the human race have "elected" not to evolve from past practice or religious records. And that is fine......... as long as their mission is not to take over other entities/lives of others. And I am not stating that any one or another does or does not. Simply that it exists.

btk

Thanks for the comment as it is a part of my point. The other part is that religion is practiced by man and as we are human sometimes we can we led astray. Anything taken to an extreme leads to trouble.

[Guest]

So doesn't the Bible say these things:

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Are you Christian? I can't imagine any Christian believing that the things you say are being taught, or have been taught for the past several hundred years or so.

I've lived as a Christian for 62 years now and have never in all my education and instruction or religious retreat been instructed in the antiquated views you mention. Were you taught these things?

You try to hard to equate ancient Christian beliefs that have been discarded by modern Christianity with the present day call for slaughter of infidels, particularly Jews, that the Islamic religion demands of it's adherents as we speak.

I wish I knew the value of this self-hating rhetoric.

[Guest]

Fervent and faithful followers of the tenets of modern day Islam are guilty of the murder of at least 39 Christians and the maiming of many more in the bombing attacks of a Catholic Church on Christianity's holiest day of the year in Nigeria.

Need I say more?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111226/D9RS4CC00.html

[Guest]

Are you Christian? I can't imagine any Christian believing that the things you say are being taught, or have been taught for the past several hundred years or so.

I've lived as a Christian for 62 years now and have never in all my education and instruction or religious retreat been instructed in the antiquated views you mention. Were you taught these things?

You try to hard to equate ancient Christian beliefs that have been discarded by modern Christianity with the present day call for slaughter of infidels, particularly Jews, that the Islamic religion demands of it's adherents as we speak.

I wish I knew the value of this self-hating rhetoric.

Richie....

Do they exist in the Bible...yes they do and parts of the old testament are still being used today against minorities. I can still see the signs about mixing the tribes in the school desegregation protests in the 60's. How about the bible being used against homosexuals. All of that is in the last 62 years.

[Guest]

Fervent and faithful followers of the tenets of modern day Islam are guilty of the murder of at least 39 Christians and the maiming of many more in the bombing attacks of a Catholic Church on Christianity's holiest day of the year in Nigeria.

Need I say more?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111226/D9RS4CC00.html

Back at ya....

http://atheistoasis.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/christians-killing-muslims-in-nigeria/

[Guest]

:agree: I lived in a small town in Northern New Jersey....

I do not recall Catholics being accused of murder, chopping off of heads or killing those who did not believe in the Pope during the Kennedy run for President !!!! Whether in this country or not.

[Guest]

Back at ya....

http://atheistoasis.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/christians-killing-muslims-in-nigeria/

I have to admit I've never seen this story and am surprised that Christians are hitting back at Islamists. I don't condone the killing of innocents which is very typical of Islamists and in this isolated case of Christians acting likewise. (Yes, "isolated") It is not the Christian way to seek revenge this way.

It's on your own conscience to continue to equate modern day Christian teachings with modern day Islamist teachings. I think it rather sad.

[Guest]

So doesn't the Bible say these things:

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)


You have quoted the Old Testament... The laws in the Old Testament were given to show us that no one can live by the Law and show us our need for someone to take our place in the punishment. That is why Jesus came. He fullfilled the Law and took our punishment. In exchange, He give us the gift of eternal life, that we could never achieve, through obedience to the Law, on our own.
Please quote the New Testament where you see promotion of literal punishments for sin/breaking the law. Doubt you will find it as it is pure good news and mercy.
Can you find this kind of unconditional love, mercy and grace in exchange for just punishment in the Quaran?

[Guest]

it seems to me that all religions are used by MAN to promote violence against non-believers and Christianity is no different. I really do not think that God was real happy with the crusades the Spanish Inquisition or the slaughter of native Americans in the name of converting the pagans to the true religion. I think the same can be said of the Islamic God,dont think he is too happy either . I guess what I'm saying is once humans get involved we will find a way to screw up what should be a simple exercise in belief.

[Guest]

You have quoted the Old Testament... The laws in the Old Testament were given to show us that no one can live by the Law and show us our need for someone to take our place in the punishment. That is why Jesus came. He fullfilled the Law and took our punishment. In exchange, He give us the gift of eternal life, that we could never achieve, through obedience to the Law, on our own.
Please quote the New Testament where you see promotion of literal punishments for sin/breaking the law. Doubt you will find it as it is pure good news and mercy.
Can you find this kind of unconditional love, mercy and grace in exchange for just punishment in the Quaran?

I have need read the Koran so I cannot comment. I respect your beliefs as I also respect the faiths of others. It is why I get upset when I say Happy Holidays and get accused of taking Christ out of Christmas...I have Jewish friends as well.

[Guest]

it seems to me that all religions are used by MAN to promote violence against non-believers and Christianity is no different. I really do not think that God was real happy with the crusades the Spanish Inquisition or the slaughter of native Americans in the name of converting the pagans to the true religion. I think the same can be said of the Islamic God,dont think he is too happy either . I guess what I'm saying is once humans get involved we will find a way to screw up what should be a simple exercise in belief.

:agree:

[Guest]

it seems to me that all religions are used by MAN to promote violence against non-believers and Christianity is no different. I really do not think that God was real happy with the crusades the Spanish Inquisition or the slaughter of native Americans in the name of converting the pagans to the true religion. I think the same can be said of the Islamic God,dont think he is too happy either . I guess what I'm saying is once humans get involved we will find a way to screw up what should be a simple exercise in belief.

Christians of today GOOD
Muslims of today BAD

No prejudice, just simple fact. It is repulsive to compare any religion to the Islamic faith. All other faiths are a least close in their actions. Islamics kill for very primitive reasons. They are very close to Neanderthal in their beliefs. To say Christians are no different sickens me. I am quite sure you do not believe it and just write what you do for a reaction, but keep in mind the killing of innocents that you say is no different than Christianity of today when you make such outrageous statements. God Bless You.

[Guest]

Both Christians and Muslims have radical sects in them. It is not right to condemn all for the criminal actions of some.

During the twentieth century, members of extremist groups such as the Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States. A number of terrorist attacks were attributed to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ. The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on May 31, 2009 was a belief that abortion is criminal and immoral, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.

This is terrorism with strong Christian ties - but it cannot be used to say that all Christians are in favor of killing abortion doctors.

[Guest]

I have to admit I've never seen this story and am surprised that Christians are hitting back at Islamists. I don't condone the killing of innocents which is very typical of Islamists and in this isolated case of Christians acting likewise. (Yes, "isolated") It is not the Christian way to seek revenge this way.

It's on your own conscience to continue to equate modern day Christian teachings with modern day Islamist teachings. I think it rather sad.

On the isolated point we would have to talk, however I would agree that it is not the Christian way.

[Guest]

I have need read the Koran so I cannot comment. I respect your beliefs as I also respect the faiths of others. It is why I get upset when I say Happy Holidays and get accused of taking Christ out of Christmas...I have Jewish friends as well.

I work closely with a Jewish physician. He puts on a wonderful Christmas dinner for the staff, complete with Christmas gifts and a "Merry Christmas" to us as the day ends. We send him and the Mrs a Lobster-Gram with the message "Happy Hannukah" on the card...Why can we not call each holiday by what it is? I don't wish muslim colleagues happy holidays during Ramadan-its Ramadan. I think that show far more respect and compassion towards our diversities.
As far as the politically correct holiday greetings, this is just one more way to cause and perpetuate animosity and division. A diversity problem for the liberals among us to "fix"-complete with specialists and training to help us know better. It is what it is.

[Guest]

Both Christians and Muslims have radical sects in them. It is not right to condemn all for the criminal actions of some.

During the twentieth century, members of extremist groups such as the Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States. A number of terrorist attacks were attributed to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ. The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on May 31, 2009 was a belief that abortion is criminal and immoral, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.

This is terrorism with strong Christian ties - but it cannot be used to say that all Christians are in favor of killing abortion doctors.

Hogwash. What you say is one small hand full out of a million Christians yet it would apply to hundreds of thousands out of a million Muslims. I do not approve of the killing of abortion doctors even to protect the unborn, yet those that do and you do not have to be a Christian to want to save the unborn babies, is far fetched to compare them to Islamic Jehad's. This thread makes me ashamed to have any liberal thoughts and I say that because those in favor of open acceptance of Muslim teachings seems to follow liberal partisan lines.

[Guest]

I think the big difference is that Christianity teaches to pray for and love our others including our "enemies".
Islam teaches killing of infidels...No one can quote the Quran where it teaches differently.

These are the facts, facts that don't change whether one is liberal or conservative. Truth does not change like that.

[Guest]

So are you tell us that you are Muslim? That YOU reject that portion of their believe? Is that what you are trying to tell us. I don't believe that the America Muslims are any different than the Mid-eastern nations that practice the Muslim followings. Death to all that do not bow down to allah and women are property to do with as the MAN wants. Not in my house or my country. If you want to follow those believes go to a country that allows this practice.

So the Gallup poll that I pointed to was a complete pack of lies?

Are you REALLY saying that you don't believe what people are reporting - that you believe what you believe and nothing will sway you?

...and by "we", I mean Americans. THat could be extended to an example in my own life. Back before I found out I was Hispanic (didn't know I was adopted), I thought I was Irish. At the time (1981) in other lacations (like Norther Ireland) an Irish Catholic marrying an Irish Protestant (my ex-wife Lisa) would have been cause to grab your guns.

Not here.

[Guest]

Are you Christian? I can't imagine any Christian believing that the things you say are being taught, or have been taught for the past several hundred years or so.


SO, the message I got from the fundamentalist Christian operator of the Nor'Easter BBS who said "The only reason I don't see you burned is because it's against the (civil/secular) law" doesn't count?

The bombings and assasinations in Northern Ireland don't count?

[Guest]

an irish friend of mine told me years ago that the "troubles" in Ireland have a lot more to do with wanting the British out of Ireland than religious reasons, and i imagine many religious wars have political and tribal undertones...but the point is that most religions themselves do not TEACH killing as a way to spread and evangelize...whereas killing of the infidel is intrinsic in Islam. it is more than a religion, it is an ideology.

[Guest]

I think it is time to go back and read the original post for this thread!!

btk

[Guest]

Admin -

Why not close this thread down? It has gone on way too long and is showing the people who might be interested in moving to The Villages that there are those who are intolerant of other religions and cultures.

People know of the Republican and basically conservative nature of The Villages when they move in - but to show bigotry and religious intolerance is another issue.

I say it is time to close this thread down. The discussions are not bringing up anything new to anyone. Thank you.

[Guest]

religious intolerance and bigotry? or sharing of facts that are difficult to accept?

[Guest]

....close minded, sick little lambs. Very much like cult followers... I'm unpleasantly surprised. How can people of the same religious backgrounds see things so differently? Way too much intolerance.

I'll second the closing of this thread.

X

[Guest]

Admin -

Why not close this thread down? It has gone on way too long and is showing the people who might be interested in moving to The Villages that there are those who are intolerant of other religions and cultures.

People know of the Republican and basically conservative nature of The Villages when they move in - but to show bigotry and religious intolerance is another issue.

I say it is time to close this thread down. The discussions are not bringing up anything new to anyone. Thank you.

Kind of childish. You don't have to contribute to this thread; you can just ignore it. This is a forum of differing ideas and not your personal platform or a platform of your view of what a Villager should believe.

Liberals are starting to get very intolerant of opposing ideas. Hey!!; now I know why you admire Islamists. You guys have something in common!! What an epiphany.

[Guest]

Kind of childish. You don't have to contribute to this thread; you can just ignore it. This is a forum of differing ideas and not your personal platform or a platform of your view of what a Villager should believe.

Liberals are starting to get very intolerant of opposing ideas. Hey!!; now I know why you admire Islamists. You guys have something in common!! What an epiphany.

I agree! Nobody forcing anyone to read this thread or any other. No reason to close a thread just because you disagree with other peoples opinions.

[Guest]

I agree! Nobody forcing anyone to read this thread or any other. No reason to close a thread just because you disagree with other peoples opinions.

For liberal progressives, that is the best reason to close a thread!

[Guest]

I work closely with a Jewish physician. He puts on a wonderful Christmas dinner for the staff, complete with Christmas gifts and a "Merry Christmas" to us as the day ends. We send him and the Mrs a Lobster-Gram with the message "Happy Hanukkah" on the card...Why can we not call each holiday by what it is? I don't wish muslim colleagues happy holidays during Ramadan-its Ramadan. I think that show far more respect and compassion towards our diversities.
As far as the politically correct holiday greetings, this is just one more way to cause and perpetuate animosity and division. A diversity problem for the liberals among us to "fix"-complete with specialists and training to help us know better. It is what it is.

I don't see this as a politically correct thing....but you conservatives continue to label everything and everyone into a box of your design. I greet my Christian friends with Merry Christmas and my Jewish friends with Happy Hanukkah however if I don't know a persons religion then I say Happy Holidays. I am trying to be religiously sensitive...not a bad thing to be.

[Guest]

an Irish friend of mine told me years ago that the "troubles" in Ireland have a lot more to do with wanting the British out of Ireland than religious reasons, and i imagine many religious wars have political and tribal undertones...but the point is that most religions themselves do not TEACH killing as a way to spread and evangelize...whereas killing of the infidel is intrinsic in Islam. it is more than a religion, it is an ideology.

This is complete crap... as a 100%, second generation Irishman I am offended. To say the troubles are not religiously based. As a case in point when I was younger I wanted to wear green on St Patrick's Day so I put on the only dress that had green in it. When my father saw me he told me to turn around and change my dress. The problem was the dress was orange and green. His statement that day was "No child of mine will wear orange on St. Patrick's Day. And I didn't and still haven't for nearly 50 years. The Catholic's hate the Orangeman with good reason.

[Guest]

So, since it is the Muslim religion that gives them permission to kill all infidels, then I would be an intolerant person to not want them to do that to me. I try to see both sides of the issue, but to say it is religious intolerance to defend yourself from a violent group set out to kill you to honor their god and beliefs, then yes I am intolerant of that and proud of it. When you get to much touchy feely, you are reminding me of the communal living hippies of the 60's. That sure turned out to change the world. Give peace a chance is a great thing, but when that does not work, its time to bring out Mr Colt and settle the problem once and for all. Allow this country to over populate with Muslims and your children and grandchildren will feel the pain of that mistake.

[Guest]

maybe we need a forum on religious tolerance and intolerance, then the political forum would become one of the more tolerant forums (just kidding)!!

btk

[Guest]

For all of you who claim to be Christians and yet are in favor of "getting out Mr Colt" and not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country or not thinking this forum has gotten into religious intolerance and bigotry; show the thread to your minister or priest - ask their opinion.

No one is forcing me to participate in this forum. I enjoy hearing what my neighbors have to say but it does scare me to know how intolerant some really are. I know some are posting just to get under my skin and that will not work. I also know some post just to hear themself talk.

[Guest]

For all of you who claim to be Christians and yet are in favor of "getting out Mr Colt" and not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country or not thinking this forum has gotten into religious intolerance and bigotry; show the thread to your minister or priest - ask their opinion.

No one is forcing me to participate in this forum. I enjoy hearing what my neighbors have to say but it does scare me to know how intolerant some really are. I know some are posting just to get under my skin and that will not work. I also know some post just to hear themself talk.

I don't think anyone is trying to offend you, at least I hope not. It is just that what you consider intolerance is really self preservation. We are not talking about a Hindu burning incense or those that practice chanting or meditation. We are talking about cold blooded murderers. Try to understand the difference. Muslims are violent to each other as well as us. Keep it in the middle east, but if you intend to move to this country, you must condemn all of the violent beliefs of the Islamic faith. Even to refer to me as an infidel is an insult when you are standing on US soil. So:::: You want to live and act like a heathen, then go to a country that will TOLERATE that mindless violence.

[Guest]

Just as I will not lump all Christians in with the senior Catholic heirarchy who, by their actions, condone child rape, I will not do the same of all Muslims.

I will not judge all Tea Partiers by those few racist degenerates that invaded some of the rallies.

I will not judge the Occupy movement because there were two communists and an anarchist in Boston.

Granted I can only guarantee that I'll *try* not to. I'm not perfect by ANY stretch of the imagination.

In short, I will not judge the whole because of the actions of a few.

[Guest]

Just as I will not lump all Christians in with the senior Catholic heirarchy who, by their actions, condone child rape, I will not do the same of all Muslims.

I will not judge all Tea Partiers by those few racist degenerates that invaded some of the rallies.

I will not judge the Occupy movement because there were two communists and an anarchist in Boston.

Granted I can only guarantee that I'll *try* not to. I'm not perfect by ANY stretch of the imagination.

In short, I will not judge the whole because of the actions of a few.

I agree totally. But, to bring us full circle, if one is a Muslim that follows the beliefs of KILL INFIDELS, STONE WOMEN FOR MINOR OFFENSES etc. etc. I will not condone nor tolerate that. My point for this thread was Sharia Law and Islamic violent customs gaining support in our US Courts and or changing our laws. If you wish to come here and be a good law abiding American, then come on down, but a good Muslim cannot IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR FAITH, follow our laws and customs.

[Guest]

In the end, this is a nation founded on Christianity and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Note the closing in the opening prayer of the first congress quoted at the end here.

History of the Chaplaincy
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."

The election of the Rev. William Linn as Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Continental Congresses of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain. The early chaplains alternated duties with their Senate counterparts on a weekly basis. The two conducted Sunday services for the Washington community in the House Chamber every other week.

Since the election of Rev. Linn in 1789, the House has been served by chaplains of various religious denominations, including Baptist (7), Christian (1), Congregationalist (2), Disciples of Christ (1), Episcopalian (4), Lutheran (1), Methodist (16), Presbyterian (15), Roman Catholic (1), Unitarian (2), and Universalist (1).

In addition to opening proceedings with prayer, the Chaplain provides pastoral counseling to the House community, coordinates the scheduling of guest chaplains, and arranges memorial services for the House and its staff. In the past, Chaplains have performed marriage and funeral ceremonies for House members.

Chaplains of the House
(1789–Present)
Date of Appointment Chaplain Denomination
May 1, 1789 The Reverend William Linn Presbyterian......

http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

[Guest]

In the end, this is a nation founded on Christianity and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Note the closing in the opening prayer of the first congress quoted at the end here.

History of the Chaplaincy
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."

The election of the Rev. William Linn as Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Continental Congresses of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain. The early chaplains alternated duties with their Senate counterparts on a weekly basis. The two conducted Sunday services for the Washington community in the House Chamber every other week.

Since the election of Rev. Linn in 1789, the House has been served by chaplains of various religious denominations, including Baptist (7), Christian (1), Congregationalist (2), Disciples of Christ (1), Episcopalian (4), Lutheran (1), Methodist (16), Presbyterian (15), Roman Catholic (1), Unitarian (2), and Universalist (1).

In addition to opening proceedings with prayer, the Chaplain provides pastoral counseling to the House community, coordinates the scheduling of guest chaplains, and arranges memorial services for the House and its staff. In the past, Chaplains have performed marriage and funeral ceremonies for House members.

Chaplains of the House
(1789–Present)
Date of Appointment Chaplain Denomination
May 1, 1789 The Reverend William Linn Presbyterian......

http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

http://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

I believe that this nation was founded on the basis of total religious freedom. There is no National religion.....Christian or otherwise.

[Guest]

Cologal,

Try as one might, you cannot reason with bigotry - and that is exactly what most of this is - just plain ignorance and bigotry.

After several days...I must now agree with you. :ohdear:

[Guest]

I believe that this nation was founded on the basis of total religious freedom. There is no National religion.....Christian or otherwise.

Wrong, but even if you were right, I for one will not except Sharia Law as some on here seem to want protection for. The formulation of our Constitution and judicial system certainly were guided by Christian beliefs and not some quirky religion that would kill you if you did not follow it to the letter. The Point is, if you have a faith different from Christianity, FINE, but it will not provide you with any benefits nor exceptions from US laws and customs. Worship whom you wish, but do not attempt to bring it into my life in any form. If you stone my wife because she wears a dress too short for your beliefs, I will not like that. If you stone your wife because she wears a dress too short and I find out about it, I will not like that either. I am confused why anyone would.

[Guest]

After several days...I must now agree with you. :ohdear:

To COLOGAL and BUGGYONE

I do not understand anything you two are preaching. NOBODY, not one person on there that I can find has found any fault with anyone practicing the rites of their religion in any way shape or form.

Everybody has been pretty clear that the promoting of death, killing, dismemberment, etc is the objection. The fact that there are segments of that religion, and it IS the majority and those who really practice it, DO, in fact condone it is the argument. The entire premise of the thread was a religion getting intertwined with our constitution.

I can only assume from what you two are saying is that it would be just fine if a mosque was nearby that promoted and advanced killings, etc. and it would be just fine because they have freedom of religion. I know others have pointed out the fact that we have laws in this country.

Thus I am not sure why you continue to call people on here names. IGNORANCE and BIGOTRY....I think not and I have not seen any justification for you to call people by those adjectives.

[Guest]

Let me say one last thing about this thread. I don't care what religion you practice or how you practice it as long as it don't interfer with my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and my right to practice my religion without having to worry about you wanting to kill me for not believing the way YOU think I should. That will be when our two worlds collide and neither of us will be happy with the out come.

[Guest]

Bucco, my friend, I would not have objections to a mosque being built nearby The Villages. It is NOT the object of Muslims - except for radical sects - to advocate killings. Of course, I would not stand for a mosque in the US that preached violence toward others. However, you would be hard pressed to find a mosque in the US like that. Of course, no one wants Sharia law in the US and US law takes precedence over that in all cases. You might find someone who does a crime under that guise, but they will be tried under US law for the crime - and rightfully so.

Just like you would be hard pressed to find a Christian sect that preaches violence - and they do exist in the US - I would steer clear of those, also.

I do agree with Richie and a few others who said they would feel uncomfortable if their favorite eateries would become filled with Muslims in their Near Eastern style clothing. I would not be afraid but am acclaimated to those who dress like me. It is human nature.

You do not see any ignorance or bigotry mentioned in the posts? The phrase used by one of the posters of "getting out Mr Colt" and not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country' sure seems to be religious and cultural ignorance and bigotry - if not downright dangerously close to a threat to Muslims.

[Guest]

Wrong, but even if you were right, I for one will not except Sharia Law as some on here seem to want protection for. The formulation of our Constitution and judicial system certainly were guided by Christian beliefs and not some quirky religion that would kill you if you did not follow it to the letter. The Point is, if you have a faith different from Christianity, FINE, but it will not provide you with any benefits nor exceptions from US laws and customs. Worship whom you wish, but do not attempt to bring it into my life in any form. If you stone my wife because she wears a dress too short for your beliefs, I will not like that. If you stone your wife because she wears a dress too short and I find out about it, I will not like that either. I am confused why anyone would.


I don't need protection from Sharia Law...this is a made up Fox Noise issue. I trust the Supreme Court of the United States.

They may have been somewhat guided by Christian beliefs but this country was founded on religous freedom. I will follow my beliefs as you have the right to do also.

[Guest]

To COLOGAL and BUGGYONE

I do not understand anything you two are preaching. NOBODY, not one person on there that I can find has found any fault with anyone practicing the rites of their religion in any way shape or form.

Everybody has been pretty clear that the promoting of death, killing, dismemberment, etc is the objection. The fact that there are segments of that religion, and it IS the majority and those who really practice it, DO, in fact condone it is the argument. The entire premise of the thread was a religion getting intertwined with our constitution.

I can only assume from what you two are saying is that it would be just fine if a mosque was nearby that promoted and advanced killings, etc. and it would be just fine because they have freedom of religion. I know others have pointed out the fact that we have laws in this country.

Thus I am not sure why you continue to call people on here names. IGNORANCE and BIGOTRY....I think not and I have not seen any justification for you to call people by those adjectives.

I HAVE NOT CALLED ANYONE A NAME....IN THIS THREAD. I am NOT afraid of Sharia law, I am afraid of terrorists however that does not make me afraid of all Muslims. It is fine to build a mosque however, you take this statement to another level.

So show me where I called anyone a bigot in this thread? If you can't then remove the post.

[Guest]

Let me say one last thing about this thread. I don't care what religion you practice or how you practice it as long as it don't interfer with my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and my right to practice my religion without having to worry about you wanting to kill me for not believing the way YOU think I should. That will be when our two worlds collide and neither of us will be happy with the out come.

:agree:

[Guest]

I HAVE NOT CALLED ANYONE A NAME....IN THIS THREAD. I am NOT afraid of Sharia law, I am afraid of terrorists however that does not make me afraid of all Muslims. It is fine to build a mosque however, you take this statement to another level.

So show me where I called anyone a bigot in this thread? If you can't then remove the post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone View Post
Cologal,

Try as one might, you cannot reason with bigotry - and that is exactly what most of this is - just plain ignorance and bigotry. FROM BUGGYONE



After several days...I must now agree with you. FROM COLOGAL

ps....I might add that the only thing folks have done is express their fear and concern for what appears to be a tenet of parts of this religion...a KNOWN AND STATED tenant, not like some of the assumed that have been posted. That fear and concern seems legitimate to me and because they feel that way should not be lumped into what BUGGYONE said and you agreed to. To me that is not bigotry !!!

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone View Post
Cologal,

Try as one might, you cannot reason with bigotry - and that is exactly what most of this is - just plain ignorance and bigotry. FROM BUGGYONE



After several days...I must now agree with you. FROM COLOGAL

ps....I might add that the only thing folks have done is express their fear and concern for what appears to be a tenet of parts of this religion...a KNOWN AND STATED tenant, not like some of the assumed that have been posted. That fear and concern seems legitimate to me and because they feel that way should not be lumped into what BUGGYONE said and you agreed to. To me that is not bigotry !!!

Bucco....I was addressing only Buggyone in this post. As I stated none of my responses to anyone included anything about being a BIGOT and that is what you accussed me of.

Yes these people are expressing fear and it maybe real to them....but to lump every Muslim into the same box is wrong.

I refuse to live my life in fear.. All my life some people have told me someone was coming to get me...The commies, the black panthers, the Jews. the gays....I could go on but the "They are going to me dejour" now are the Muslims. What do you say to George Tiller's wife a Christian" walked into a church on Sunday and shot him in the head. Should I fear Christian’s? Would it be a rational fear. Did the Germans fear the Jews... yes. Was what they did do that fear justifiable? No. Any group should not be targeted due to the actions of a few.

[Guest]

djp, from your #158:

"Just as I will not lump all Christians in with the senior Catholic heirarchy who, by their actions, condone child rape, I will not do the same of all Muslims."

To be consistent with the other examples in your post you should amend the very first line (quoted above) to reflect reality by inserting the words 'some of' then your statement will be qualified as you did all the others. Hence restated with qualifiers:

Just as I will not lump all Christians in with 'some of' the senior Catholic heirarchy who, by their actions, condone child rape, I will not do the same of all Muslims.

That makes it more consistent with the others and so much more accurate!

btk

[Guest]

I don't see this as a politically correct thing....but you conservatives continue to label everything and everyone into a box of your design. I greet my Christian friends with Merry Christmas and my Jewish friends with Happy Hanukkah however if I don't know a persons religion then I say Happy Holidays. I am trying to be religiously sensitive...not a bad thing to be.

I guess I know the people around me at work enough to know exactlly what it is that they are all celebrating. Not labelling, just caring enough to actually know them...that is the brand of sensitivity that we practice in my neck of the woods.

[Guest]

Bucco....I was addressing only Buggyone in this post. As I stated none of my responses to anyone included anything about being a BIGOT and that is what you accussed me of.

Yes these people are expressing fear and it maybe real to them....but to lump every Muslim into the same box is wrong.

I refuse to live my life in fear.. All my life some people have told me someone was coming to get me...The commies, the black panthers, the Jews. the gays....I could go on but the "They are going to me dejour" now are the Muslims. What do you say to George Tiller's wife a Christian" walked into a church on Sunday and shot him in the head. Should I fear Christian’s? Would it be a rational fear. Did the Germans fear the Jews... yes. Was what they did do that fear justifiable? No. Any group should not be targeted due to the actions of a few.

"Bucco....I was addressing only Buggyone in this post. As I stated none of my responses to anyone included anything about being a BIGOT and that is what you accussed me of."

First, this is a public forum. You cannot address ONLY one person except in a PM.

I accused you of nothing except agreeing that most of the posts or comments were bigotry...period..thats it.

"Yes these people are expressing fear and it maybe real to them....but to lump every Muslim into the same box is wrong."

In my opinion and I suppose only my opinion, folks on here had no problem with anyone practicing their religion, UNLESS it interfered with they was THEY lived their life, which includes fear for your life. Sure, much of it, and I sure am guilty I am sure is ignorance of the religion, but it DOES IN FACT preach what folks on here have mentioned as something they fear. Those radical groups you seem to just shrug off have said publicly they will kill us...they have said they will infiltrate us from within (how long did the 9/11 bombers spend here living quietly) I hear VERY VERY little in the way of folks who live here of the Muslim faith saying anything to rebutt it.
This is NOW....REAL LIFE...not historical debate items.

"I refuse to live my life in fear.. All my life some people have told me someone was coming to get me...The commies, the black panthers, the Jews. the gays....I could go on but the "They are going to me dejour" now are the Muslims. What do you say to George Tiller's wife a Christian" walked into a church on Sunday and shot him in the head. Should I fear Christian’s? Would it be a rational fear. Did the Germans fear the Jews... yes. Was what they did do that fear justifiable? No. Any group should not be targeted due to the actions of a few."

This is nothing but political correctness rambling. WHO ever said you should live your life in fear...the subject of the thread was allowing a religious belief interfere with our constitution.

The "commies" are nothing but a political party and any strength they may have had is historical....you should fear the Black Panthers where they are strong, but at this point their threat is a very local one...never heard of the Jews or Gays openly threatening our county AS MANY...AND remember it IS MANY...of the muslim religion has done.

The individual stuff you mention is simply trash talk. My point was and still is.......this group...a very large and most probably a majority of this religion has vowed to kill you, your children and your grandchildren and bring your country to its knees. Being cautious and aware is not bigotry unless there is no basis for that, and in this case there is strong and clear threats, etc to establish a very good basis for that caution and fear.

and by the way, you refer to "you conservatives" as if it were a condition. Let me tell you, get out more...if you think this fear is a conservative trait, you are really out of touch.

[Guest]

"Bucco....I was addressing only Buggyone in this post. As I stated none of my responses to anyone included anything about being a BIGOT and that is what you accussed me of."

First, this is a public forum. You cannot address ONLY one person except in a PM.

I accused you of nothing except agreeing that most of the posts or comments were bigotry...period..thats it.

"Yes these people are expressing fear and it maybe real to them....but to lump every Muslim into the same box is wrong."

In my opinion and I suppose only my opinion, folks on here had no problem with anyone practicing their religion, UNLESS it interfered with they was THEY lived their life, which includes fear for your life. Sure, much of it, and I sure am guilty I am sure is ignorance of the religion, but it DOES IN FACT preach what folks on here have mentioned as something they fear. Those radical groups you seem to just shrug off have said publicly they will kill us...they have said they will infiltrate us from within (how long did the 9/11 bombers spend here living quietly) I hear VERY VERY little in the way of folks who live here of the Muslim faith saying anything to rebutt it.
This is NOW....REAL LIFE...not historical debate items.

"I refuse to live my life in fear.. All my life some people have told me someone was coming to get me...The commies, the black panthers, the Jews. the gays....I could go on but the "They are going to me dejour" now are the Muslims. What do you say to George Tiller's wife a Christian" walked into a church on Sunday and shot him in the head. Should I fear Christian’s? Would it be a rational fear. Did the Germans fear the Jews... yes. Was what they did do that fear justifiable? No. Any group should not be targeted due to the actions of a few."

This is nothing but political correctness rambling. WHO ever said you should live your life in fear...the subject of the thread was allowing a religious belief interfere with our constitution.

The "commies" are nothing but a political party and any strength they may have had is historical....you should fear the Black Panthers where they are strong, but at this point their threat is a very local one...never heard of the Jews or Gays openly threatening our county AS MANY...AND remember it IS MANY...of the muslim religion has done.

The individual stuff you mention is simply trash talk. My point was and still is.......this group...a very large and most probably a majority of this religion has vowed to kill you, your children and your grandchildren and bring your country to its knees. Being cautious and aware is not bigotry unless there is no basis for that, and in this case there is strong and clear threats, etc to establish a very good basis for that caution and fear.

and by the way, you refer to "you conservatives" as if it were a condition. Let me tell you, get out more...if you think this fear is a conservative trait, you are really out of touch.

If I thought this post deserved an answer I would answer it..but a rant? NAH!

[Guest]

..."You do not see any ignorance or bigotry mentioned in the posts? The phrase used by one of the posters of "getting out Mr Colt" and not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country" sure seems to be religious and cultural ignorance and bigotry - if not downright dangerously close to a threat to the lives of Muslims. I have repeated this posting by one of the regular posters and it has drawn not a single reply. Are you agreeing with the idea of this?

[Guest]

Thank you, Bucco for your latest post.

And regarding this mockery/quote by "cologal".....

"I don't need protection from Sharia Law...this is a made up Fox Noise issue..."

The following two links are enlightening:

Sharia's Encroachment into American Courts

......."Under U.S. law, child custody cases follow the legal standard of "the best interests of the child." This can mean joint custody of children by both parents, full custody solely by the mother or father, or, if both parents are unfit, custody by relatives or guardians. Under sharia or Islamic doctrine, however, fathers receive sole custody when children reach seven years of age, regardless of family circumstances.

That's exactly how Hosain v. Malik was decided in 1996 when an American court in Maryland awarded full custody of a daughter to her father, enforcing a court order from Pakistan, an Islamic country that follows sharia law. Although the mother in the custody battle was never deemed unfit and the daughter was actually afraid of her father, an alleged substance abuser and batterer, the U.S. court enforced sharia requirements. Further, the child's attorney was not present at the custody decision to advocate for the child, and no input was sought from the daughter, as is standard in U.S. custody cases.

In the Hosain v. Malik case, the husband's attorney cleverly twisted the "best interest of the child" requirement and argued that in Pakistani culture, the well-being of the child is facilitated by adherence to Islamic teaching, which mandates custody to the father. In this case, the child was sent back to Pakistan with the father, violating the child's human rights to enjoy a relationship with her mother and violating the mother's rights as a woman. Further, the father accused his ex-wife of adultery, which meant that if she returned to Pakistan she could face imprisonment, lashing, or even death by stoning under sharia".....

Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html

And here:

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases

"The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections......

Read more:
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

[Guest]

Thank you, Bucco for your latest post.

And regarding this mockery/quote by "cologal".....



The following two links are enlightening:

Sharia's Encroachment into American Courts



Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html

And here:

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases

.....

Read more:
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

So to prove the point you use only ultra conservative links....Right!

[Guest]

So to prove the point you use only ultra conservative links....Right!

View the actual cases here. They speak for themselves.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=305

[Guest]

djp, from your #158:

"Just as I will not lump all Christians in with the senior Catholic heirarchy who, by their actions, condone child rape, I will not do the same of all Muslims."

To be consistent with the other examples in your post you should amend the very first line (quoted above) to reflect reality by inserting the words 'some of' then your statement will be qualified as you did all the others. Hence restated with qualifiers:

Just as I will not lump all Christians in with 'some of' the senior Catholic heirarchy who, by their actions, condone child rape, I will not do the same of all Muslims.

That makes it more consistent with the others and so much more accurate!

btk

You're correct, I should have said it that way. I didn't because I keep thinking of how the very top of the heirarchy, the Pope himself, aided in the conspiracy - and the sheltering of Cardinal Law just as he was about to be subpoenaed by the Boston Police Department. Sometimes that red button of mine is a little more visible. There are many people, especially some of the priests I knew, who ARE examples of what I think of as the best of Christianity.

[Guest]

In the end, this is a nation founded on Christianity and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


That the Congress has a chaplain means nothing more than the fact that there's a chaplain on the air base where I work.

Here's a few quotes for you:

Starting with the Constitution


Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion


The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Now, if you were to say that many of our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature, I could agree with that.

[Guest]

That the Congress has a chaplain means nothing more than the fact that there's a chaplain on the air base where I work.

Here's a few quotes for you:

Starting with the Constitution



The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:


Now, if you were to say that many of our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature, I could agree with that.

Yes, our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature.....which is why I mentioned the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....and not Ishmael or others.

And as for the chaplaincy of the House, it's not just that there is one. It's that God has always been acknowledged from the beginning in the formation of our nation and its lawmaking, while today, more and more people insist that there be no mention of Him at all "because of separation of church and state". The earliest prayers (and current ones) by the chaplains at the opening of the House and Senate sessions indicate no such separation.

"During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian.
Duties of the Senate Chaplain
In addition to opening the Senate each day in prayer,......"

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

[Guest]

View the actual cases here. They speak for themselves.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=305

So now I am even more confused....in the first case I looked at in Florida the court clearly stated the marriage agreement entered into by both parties in Iran would have no bearing in the US. From your link:

“Q. And what were the terms of this marriage contract?

“The Court: That is wholly without my consideration, this antenuptial agreement that was entered into under the laws of another country. That is not going to have one bit of bearing whatever on what I intend to do.

In the second case, again in Florida, the laws of Virginia were applied as the couple never obtained a marriage license before being married.

Virginia statutory and case law is contrary to Betemariam’s position. Section 20-13 of the Code of Virginia, entitled “License and solemnization required,” provides as follows: “Every marriage in this Commonwealth shall be under a license and solemnized in the manner herein provided.” (emphasis supplied). Additionally, Virginia’s statutory scheme provides that the validity of a marriage is not affected by certain defects:

Did you even take the time to look any of these cases over?

[Guest]

..."You do not see any ignorance or bigotry mentioned in the posts? The phrase used by one of the posters of "getting out Mr Colt" and not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country" sure seems to be religious and cultural ignorance and bigotry - if not downright dangerously close to a threat to the lives of Muslims. I have repeated this posting by one of the regular posters and it has drawn not a single reply. Are you agreeing with the idea of this?

Yes, there is ignorance by those that fail to show intent to protect their loved ones and this country. Might even classify as treason. Try not to take posts out of context and twist them for your own desires. This thread has large majority that see the future threat so it just may be possible the majority are not ignorant and bigoted.

I SAID: Give peace a chance is a great thing, but when that does not work, its time to bring out Mr Colt and settle the problem once and for all. How did you read downright dangerously close to a threat to the lives of Muslims
I ALSO SAID: not allowing Muslims to overpopulate the country I stand by that statement as under the laws of this country, Majority rules: IF MUSLIMS OVERPOPULATE THIS COUNTRY, SHARIA LAW WILL BECOME LAW OF THE US. Now if you want Sharia Law to become the new US law, then keep on posting as you do and that is your right under freedom of speech and press, but allow me the same courtesy and if you quote me, use the entire quote so no misunderstanding will happen. Thank you.

[Guest]

As their has been some bending of the lines of this Thread: THIS IS HOW IT STARTED: Maybe this will clear up some of the missquotes and interpritations.

The Constitution and Religion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure I could post directly on the forum with a faith concern, but in this case, it is as much a constitutional question. Last night Bill O gave a very interesting opinion or fact, I am not sure which, of the difference between Religion and Christianity in relation to the US Constitution. In brief, we have freedom from Religion like Catholic, Methodist etc. etc., but that the constitution was based on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, the way I understood his intent: THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. Assuming that is a FACT, why do we even entertain issues that pertain to laws and rights that are not within the realm of Christianity? Sharia Law for example.

MY OPINION: As important as it is for Muslim countries to stamp out any Infidel beliefs, we better wake up and stop any non-Christian laws or customs from overriding our constitution. I firmly believe that freedom from or of religion does not mean freedom to change this countries laws and customs to better fit any faith, religion or belief that does not follow a strict compliance with Christian philosophy..

[Guest]

Religon & politics always makes for such cordial conversation. My old high school buddies who get together once a year to golf have a rule: no talk of religion, politics, ed, other medical conditions. Needless to say it is a quiet, distraction-free round of golf. :cus: :cus:

[Guest]

Yes, our founding principles were Judeo-Christian in nature.....which is why I mentioned the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.....and not Ishmael or others.

And as for the chaplaincy of the House, it's not just that there is one. It's that God has always been acknowledged from the beginning in the formation of our nation and its lawmaking, while today, more and more people insist that there be no mention of Him at all "because of separation of church and state". The earliest prayers (and current ones) by the chaplains at the opening of the House and Senate sessions indicate no such separation.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

1) Is anyone in the Senate force to say the pray along? I'm guessing not.

2) Being founded on Judeo-Christian principles and being a Christian Nation (note the capitalization) are two very different things. In the former, the Bible may be inspiration - especially the better parts. In the latter, the Bible is the lawbook and that can be very dangerous.

As far as the whole "Christian Nation" thing goes... well, we are a nation made up, largely, of Christians. Again, big difference.

Are you put in prison for pre-marital sex?

If a woman, are you force to stay in a marriage even if your husband beats you?

Are you arrested for conducting business on a Sunday? (Blue Laws)

These were all Christian things in our colonial days.

One of the great things about our nation was that we did NOT ban members of other religions from holding public office or other positions. (Like how Catholics were banned from being lawyers from time to time in England)

Going back even further, the "Christian" thing to do would be to purify your neighbors sins by burning him or her if they were an infidel.

[Guest]

all these key strokes that present the past as justification for the here and now are for what purpose?

The here and now shows most civilized people have evolved to our modern level of beliefs. That would be the MAJORITY of the population here and now.

Yes there are some groups/individuals in the world that have not evolved and still live by the days of old.

They have that right....until or unless they embark upon efforts to impress what they believe upon me or my family....or change the way we live or what we believe in the here in now. And there are those that are committed to that end. And yes, SOME are Muslims. And thank GOD they are in the minority.

All the word smithing being presented is not going to change that one bit...nor is it going to change the notion that most of us want it to remain that way!!

It is really pretty simple. Some subject matter just does not need too much intellectualizing...in my humble opinion!

btk

[Guest]

all these key strokes that present the past as justification for the here and now are for what purpose?

The here and now shows most civilized people have evolved to our modern level of beliefs. That would be the MAJORITY of the population here and now.

Yes there are some groups/individuals in the world that have not evolved and still live by the days of old.

They have that right....until or unless they embark upon efforts to impress what they believe upon me or my family....or change the way we live or what we believe in the here in now. And there are those that are committed to that end. And yes, SOME are Muslims. And thank GOD they are in the minority.

All the word smithing being presented is not going to change that one bit...nor is it going to change the notion that most of us want it to remain that way!!

It is really pretty simple. Some subject matter just does not need too much intellectualizing...in my humble opinion!

btk

I hope all can understand this post. Well said. This is one of the very few issues that I say: YOU WILL NOT CHANGE MY MIND ON THIS ONE.

[Guest]

1) Is anyone in the Senate force to say the pray along? I'm guessing not.

2) Being founded on Judeo-Christian principles and being a Christian Nation (note the capitalization) are two very different things. In the former, the Bible may be inspiration - especially the better parts. In the latter, the Bible is the lawbook and that can be very dangerous.

As far as the whole "Christian Nation" thing goes... well, we are a nation made up, largely, of Christians. Again, big difference.

Are you put in prison for pre-marital sex?

If a woman, are you force to stay in a marriage even if your husband beats you?

Are you arrested for conducting business on a Sunday? (Blue Laws)

These were all Christian things in our colonial days.

One of the great things about our nation was that we did NOT ban members of other religions from holding public office or other positions. (Like how Catholics were banned from being lawyers from time to time in England)

Going back even further, the "Christian" thing to do would be to purify your neighbors sins by burning him or her if they were an infidel.

Digging back in history to dredge up antiquated doings of some Christians to create the idea of some sort of moral equivalence to the violent teaching of mainstream modern day Islam with modern day Christianity is rather scurrilous and of extremely suspect purpose.

I know you won't see it that way and that is rather sad, in my view.

[Guest]

Digging back in history to dredge up antiquated doings of some Christians to create the idea of some sort of moral equivalence to the violent teaching of mainstream modern day Islam with modern day Christianity is rather scurrilous and of extremely suspect purpose.

I know you won't see it that way and that is rather sad, in my view.

I see it that way, just could never say it so purrttyy.

[Guest]

Digging back in history to dredge up antiquated doings of some Christians to create the idea of some sort of moral equivalence to the violent teaching of mainstream modern day Islam with modern day Christianity is rather scurrilous and of extremely suspect purpose.

I know you won't see it that way and that is rather sad, in my view.

My purpose was to demonstrate what "Christianity" meant when the Founders were writing our founding documents.

Modern day Christianity (by and large) is FAR more 'civilized' than it used to be. I mean, come on, I married one! :) ...and I'm insanely happy in said marriage.

The only part of your statement that I'll dispute is that modern mainstream AMERICAN Muslims are not, by and large, of that ilk. I honestly don't know what the ratio is in other countries of Islamo-fascists to more moderate Muslims.

[Guest]

My purpose was to demonstrate what "Christianity" meant when the Founders were writing our founding documents.

Modern day Christianity (by and large) is FAR more 'civilized' than it used to be. I mean, come on, I married one! :) ...and I'm insanely happy in said marriage.

The only part of your statement that I'll dispute is that modern mainstream AMERICAN Muslims are not, by and large, of that ilk. I honestly don't know what the ratio is in other countries of Islamo-fascists to more moderate Muslims.

I do not believe there is a moderate Muslim. That would be the same as a Sunday morning only Christian. If they do not wish to kill infidels, they are being disingenuous to their brotherhood of Muslims. If they are as you say, moderate, then they would not need Sharia Law in the first place. They would be happy to assimilate into the American culture. They would not kill their daughters if they dated a Jew, they would take their drivers license photo without a burqua on etc. etc. etc. Back to my OP, I have no problem with any faith or religion as long as they follow American law and CUSTOMS while residing in this country.

[Guest]

I do not believe there is a moderate Muslim. That would be the same as a Sunday morning only Christian. If they do not wish to kill infidels, they are being disingenuous to their brotherhood of Muslims. If they are as you say, moderate, then they would not need Sharia Law in the first place. They would be happy to assimilate into the American culture. They would not kill their daughters if they dated a Jew, they would take their drivers license photo without a burqua on etc. etc. etc. Back to my OP, I have no problem with any faith or religion as long as they follow American law and CUSTOMS while residing in this country.

Most of "them" (again, I stress in THIS country) *don't* need Sharia law.

What part of this aren't you getting? Did you look at the numbers from the recent Gallup poll I linked to? It clearly states that American Muslims reject violence EVEN MORE THAN CHRISTIANS DO.

In case you missed it, I'll quote it for you.

Question: "Some people think that for the military to kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that it is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Protestant: 38% Never, 58% Sometimes.
Catholic: 39% Never, 58% Sometimes.
Jewish: 43% Never, 53% Sometimes.
Atheist/Agnostic/None: 56% Never 43% Sometimes.
Muslim: 78% Never, 21% Sometimes.

Take a good hard look at that and tell me how that cognitive dissonance feels.

Try this one...

Question: "Some people think that for an individual person or small group of persons to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Protestant: 71% Never, 26% Sometimes.
Catholic: 71% Never, 27% Sometimes.
Jewish: 75% Never, 22% Sometimes.
Atheist/Agnostic/None: 76% Never 23% Sometimes.
Muslim: 89% Never, 11% Sometimes.

This reality is clashing with your pre-conceived notions.

Again, I'll re-stress this was a poll done of AMERICAN Muslims.

Oh, and that "Sunday morning only Christian" you mention? Took me about 10 seconds to find a 2005 poll showing that only 45% of Protestants and Catholics attended mass every week. (For comparison, in 1955, 75% of Catholics and 42% of Protestants did)

[Guest]

You state that the poll clearly states that American Muslims reject violence EVEN MORE THAN CHRISTIANS DO...BUT the question posed by the poll is Question: "Some people think that for the military to kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that it is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Your conclusion and the poll results do not fit together...

[Guest]

Most of "them" (again, I stress in THIS country) *don't* need Sharia law.

What part of this aren't you getting? Did you look at the numbers from the recent Gallup poll I linked to? It clearly states that American Muslims reject violence EVEN MORE THAN CHRISTIANS DO.

In case you missed it, I'll quote it for you.

Question: "Some people think that for the military to kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that it is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Protestant: 38% Never, 58% Sometimes.
Catholic: 39% Never, 58% Sometimes.
Jewish: 43% Never, 53% Sometimes.
Atheist/Agnostic/None: 56% Never 43% Sometimes.
Muslim: 78% Never, 21% Sometimes.

Take a good hard look at that and tell me how that cognitive dissonance feels.

Try this one...

Question: "Some people think that for an individual person or small group of persons to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that kind of violence is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Protestant: 71% Never, 26% Sometimes.
Catholic: 71% Never, 27% Sometimes.
Jewish: 75% Never, 22% Sometimes.
Atheist/Agnostic/None: 76% Never 23% Sometimes.
Muslim: 89% Never, 11% Sometimes.

This reality is clashing with your pre-conceived notions.

Again, I'll re-stress this was a poll done of AMERICAN Muslims.

Oh, and that "Sunday morning only Christian" you mention? Took me about 10 seconds to find a 2005 poll showing that only 45% of Protestants and Catholics attended mass every week. (For comparison, in 1955, 75% of Catholics and 42% of Protestants did)

Just wondering how those muslims who were the main players of the 9/11 attacks would have responded to that poll while they were living here and "casing the joint" ???

[Guest]

Just wondering how those muslims who were the main players of the 9/11 attacks would have responded to that poll while they were living here and "casing the joint" ???


Do you think Tim McVeigh would have answered honestly when he was plotting to blow up a building that had a day care on the ground floor?

[Guest]

You state that the poll clearly states that American Muslims reject violence EVEN MORE THAN CHRISTIANS DO...BUT the question posed by the poll is Question: "Some people think that for the military to kill civilians is sometimes justified while other think that it is never justified. Which is your opinion?"

Your conclusion and the poll results do not fit together...

...which is why I included the other question. In both cases, Muslims said violence was "Never" justified in higher numbers than Christians.

...and to make my point even clearer, *ATHEISTS* (albeit a liberal definition that included agnostics and 'none') rejected violence more than Christians.

Another point that I'm trying to make is - what is it that we have here in the U.S. that seems to be an antidote against Islamofascists? My theory is that it's the same thing that keeps Communists (and people like that odd self-proclaimed Anarchist-Communist) and others from gaining too many adherents. ...and we seem to have more of "it" than they do in Europe. My *guess* is it's economic success. Even our LOUSY economy is orders of magnitude better than others. Other democratic economic success stories aren't having the issues with Islamofascists - countries like South Korea and Japan.

[Guest]

Do you think Tim McVeigh would have answered honestly when he was plotting to blow up a building that had a day care on the ground floor?

Do you think that Muslims will answer honetly what they believe about violence? Especially when you know that a main doctrine of their religion is to deceive the enemy/infidels/unbelievers...?

[Guest]

Do you think Tim McVeigh would have answered honestly when he was plotting to blow up a building that had a day care on the ground floor?


You make my point. The polls you mention are meaningless !

[Guest]

Listen to speeches by G.W.Bush (Self proclaimed Christian) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (self proclaimed Muslim) and you will see, hear and feel the difference between a Muslim and all other religions. Keep in mind that both represent Millions of followers of each specific faith.

:spoken:

[Guest]

Listen to speeches by G.W.Bush (Self proclaimed Christian) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (self proclaimed Muslim) and you will see, hear and feel the difference between a Muslim and all other religions. Keep in mind that both represent Millions of followers of each specific faith.

:spoken:

However, to date I believe the actions of G W Bush have resulted in many more deaths than those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Just saying.

[Guest]

However, to date I believe the actions of G W Bush have resulted in many more deaths than those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Just saying.

Cheap shot as you suggest that President Bush acted unilaterally and without Congressional approval. I recall majorites in both parties "acting" in support of the President. With the tension and threats created by Ahmadinejad and Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, his threatening rhetoric directed at Israel and his pursuit of nuclear weapons why are you an apologist for him? By giving him a twisted moral superiority to President Bush it seems that way.

Just saying.

[Guest]

However, to date I believe the actions of G W Bush have resulted in many more deaths than those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Just saying.

Can you give a link to prove or disprove that statement? Iran is one of the main supporters of world terrorism so that statement might not hold much water. Perhaps Ahmadinejad personally has not killed many but his state supported terrorism most likely is responsible for more deaths that Bush. Also you might want to add in the ones that are caused by the current Administration and see who has the greatest total, The Big "O", "W" or the wonderful "A" who wants to stone to death a woman for commiting adultry while the man walks proudly away.

[Guest]

Wow!!!

"However, to date I believe the actions of G W Bush have resulted in many more deaths than those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The statement reflects a need to Bushbash. Almadinanutjob as a character reference....OH MY GOD:ohdear:

btk

[Guest]

Thank GOD there are only a few misguided folks on this thread. I would bet they were in the airport shouting baby killer when I came back from Viet Nam.

Some folks dropped too many tabs of acid during the 60's to focus correctly today.

:bowdown::pray: Thank GOD I am a Christian and at least 51% Conservative.

[Guest]

Thank GOD there are only a few misguided folks on this thread. I would bet they were in the airport shouting baby killer when I came back from Viet Nam.

Some folks dropped too many tabs of acid during the 60's to focus correctly today.

:bowdown::pray: Thank GOD I am a Christian and at least 51% Conservative.

I was drug free in the 60's and still and that comment was a cheap shot. Never protested the war but did help to read the names of the dead. So you conservatives once again lump anyone who doesnt agree with into the same liberal commie loving box.

One of my nephews flew combat missions during that conflict....

[Guest]

Cheap shot as you suggest that President Bush acted unilaterally and without Congressional approval. I recall majorites in both parties "acting" in support of the President. With the tension and threats created by Ahmadinejad and Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, his threatening rhetoric directed at Israel and his pursuit of nuclear weapons why are you an apologist for him? By giving him a twisted moral superiority to President Bush it seems that way.

Just saying.

The problem here really is the statement to which I replied. We were asked to compare the speeches of both men to see which one was evil. All I did was to compare their actions as they speak louder than words.

There was no other intent or message in the post.

[Guest]

Katz & Bucco:

Be very careful here. Do you realize what you're sounding like?

You're saying that it doesn't matter WHAT a Muslim says, that he or she is dedicated to violence. Their words do no matter - nor do their individual actions - yuou just KNOW that they're a threat to this country. After all, it's in the Koran, if I read your justification properly.

Well, read the Bible for crying out loud. It's FULL of wars, hatred, misogyny and genocide.

Based on your attitudes towards Muslims - as in you just *know* what they're thinking, why should I believe anything from a Christian? After all, from the Crusades to Northern Ireland, there's a history of mass murder. Heck, the Christian brigades in Uganda are using torture and targetting civilians to get THEIR way.. Oh - but they're not REAL Christians, right? They're interpreting the Bible in THEIR way to justify THEIR actions, yes?

...and, again, quoting Mahmoud ImANutJob makes my point even stronger - he's NOT an AMERICAN MUSLIM - and that's the difference I've been trying to point out.

Note that we didn't have any problems with Muslims before 9/11. Even when the WTC was bombed the first time, people largely looked at the perps as a radical offshoot. The 9/11 killers WERE moles here, that much is true, but a posthumous background check shows where they came from and where they studied. They were foreigners who came here on a mission. Most Muslims in this country are not on that mission.

Do you know who Andrew Kehoe is? He is the person who perpetrated the worst suicide bombing in U.S. history. On May 18, 1927 he killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire. As firefighters responded to that blaze, he detonated dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol that he'd planted inside the Bath (Michigan) Consolidated School over the course of months. When the rescuers started showing up at the school, Kehoe drove up and detonated a bomb in his vehicle. In the aftermath, rescuers discovered 500 pounds of dynamite and pyrotol in the basement of the school's south wing that did NOT detonate.

The death toll was 45 (not including Kehoe) of which 38 were elementary school students.

He was Catholic.

Do you believe Catholics should be judged by his example? Do you believe that all Irish are secret members of the IRA terrorist organization? Do you believe that all Catholic priests are secret rapists? Of course not.

You're so willing to let members of other religions 'off the hook' for the actions of their madmen. Violence abounds in the Bible and, yet, that's ok. But if the person is Muslim, there's no such quarter given.

Go up to Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman, and tell HIM that he's an advocate of violence - and HAS to be, because he's a Muslim.

[Guest]

Wow!!!

"However, to date I believe the actions of G W Bush have resulted in many more deaths than those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The statement reflects a need to Bushbash. Almadinanutjob as a character reference....OH MY GOD:ohdear:

btk

No Bushbashing.....

[Guest]

The problem here really is the statement to which I replied. We were asked to compare the speeches of both men to see which one was evil. All I did was to compare their actions as they speak louder than words.

There was no other intent or message in the post.

I would not make any statement that made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sound like a less evil person than G.W. Bush. Not true and a horible thing to say about any commander in chief of this great country.

[Guest]

I was drug free in the 60's and still and that comment was a cheap shot. Never protested the war but did help to read the names of the dead. So you conservatives once again lump anyone who doesnt agree with into the same liberal commie loving box.

One of my nephews flew combat missions during that conflict....

Congratulations on your drug history and I salute your nephew for his service. Sorry if you read my post and saw anything close to calling anyone a liberal commie lover. Interesting that you refer to me as a conservative. Most folks on this forum refer to me as a liberal. I do admit, that I sometimes take the liberal stance on certain issues, but never will I be liberal about a tribe of people that want me and mine dead and gone as the Muslims do about us just because we are Christian.

[Guest]

Katz & Bucco:

Be very careful here. Do you realize what you're sounding like?

You're saying that it doesn't matter WHAT a Muslim says, that he or she is dedicated to violence. Their words do no matter - nor do their individual actions - yuou just KNOW that they're a threat to this country. After all, it's in the Koran, if I read your justification properly.

Well, read the Bible for crying out loud. It's FULL of wars, hatred, misogyny and genocide.

Based on your attitudes towards Muslims - as in you just *know* what they're thinking, why should I believe anything from a Christian? After all, from the Crusades to Northern Ireland, there's a history of mass murder. Heck, the Christian brigades in Uganda are using torture and targetting civilians to get THEIR way.. Oh - but they're not REAL Christians, right? They're interpreting the Bible in THEIR way to justify THEIR actions, yes?

...and, again, quoting Mahmoud ImANutJob makes my point even stronger - he's NOT an AMERICAN MUSLIM - and that's the difference I've been trying to point out.

Note that we didn't have any problems with Muslims before 9/11. Even when the WTC was bombed the first time, people largely looked at the perps as a radical offshoot. The 9/11 killers WERE moles here, that much is true, but a posthumous background check shows where they came from and where they studied. They were foreigners who came here on a mission. Most Muslims in this country are not on that mission.

Do you know who Andrew Kehoe is? He is the person who perpetrated the worst suicide bombing in U.S. history. On May 18, 1927 he killed his wife and set his farm buildings on fire. As firefighters responded to that blaze, he detonated dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol that he'd planted inside the Bath (Michigan) Consolidated School over the course of months. When the rescuers started showing up at the school, Kehoe drove up and detonated a bomb in his vehicle. In the aftermath, rescuers discovered 500 pounds of dynamite and pyrotol in the basement of the school's south wing that did NOT detonate.

The death toll was 45 (not including Kehoe) of which 38 were elementary school students.

He was Catholic.

Do you believe Catholics should be judged by his example? Do you believe that all Irish are secret members of the IRA terrorist organization? Do you believe that all Catholic priests are secret rapists? Of course not.

You're so willing to let members of other religions 'off the hook' for the actions of their madmen. Violence abounds in the Bible and, yet, that's ok. But if the person is Muslim, there's no such quarter given.

Go up to Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman, and tell HIM that he's an advocate of violence - and HAS to be, because he's a Muslim.



All I am saying is that the Muslim religion STRONGLY ADVOCATES DECEPTION AS A MEANS TO AN ULTIMATE GOAL...Unlike the Chrisitan religion that advocates TRUTH AND HONESTY, ALSO AS A MEANS TO AN ULTIMATE GOAL.
Twist it as you like, but change it you cannot.

[Guest]

All I am saying is that the Muslim religion STRONGLY ADVOCATES DECEPTION AS A MEANS TO AN ULTIMATE GOAL...Unlike the Chrisitan religion that advocates TRUTH AND HONESTY, ALSO AS A MEANS TO AN ULTIMATE GOAL.
Twist it as you like, but change it you cannot.

Very well said. When someone compares Tim McVey (a single nut) to the Muslim philosophy, it has no bearing on the intent of this thread. i.e. the majority of Christians would inform on anyone planing an act of terrorism.

[Guest]

Oh, it absolutely does.

The majority of American Muslims, at a greater percentage than Christians, disavow violence. Surely, however, there are those out there advocating violence and murder. And, absolutley, overseas you hear a LOT of that.

Christians aren't violent? So tell me about Operation Rescue and their advocacy of killing abortion doctors. And no matter what your position on abortion, killing innocent bystanders when a clinic is bombed is wrong. But you hear the SAME justifications of 'collateral damage' that you do from the Islamofascists.

As I've said before, the Christian religion has had more time to 'mature'. There are fewer nutjobs out there - but mass murderers were still quite commonly using religious justification for political terrorism (Northern Ireland) until VERY recently.

My point is this. There is a difference between American Muslims and foreign fundamentalists. Just as there's a difference between those at Ruby Ridge and your mainstream Christian. JFK got that kind of bigotry when people thought that having a Catholic President would mean he would be taking order from the Pope. It was false then and it's false now. American Catholics don't take their orders from the Pope and the behavior of the Vatican turns more and more off - to the point where, once again, there's talk of a split - a creation of an American Catholic Church.

Because of the relative 'newness' of dealing with Islamofascists, and the fact that they WERE able to take over a country (Afghanistan) and ARE able to exploit and recruit those who are suffering under the boot of Middle Eastern autocrats and kleptocrats, there's a lot of broad brush painting of Muslims here. Why do I write about this so much? Because being married to a pagan, I got a lot of it first hand.

[Guest]

Oh, it absolutely does.

The majority of American Muslims, at a greater percentage than Christians, disavow violence. Surely, however, there are those out there advocating violence and murder. And, absolutley, overseas you hear a LOT of that.

Christians aren't violent? So tell me about Operation Rescue and their advocacy of killing abortion doctors. And no matter what your position on abortion, killing innocent bystanders when a clinic is bombed is wrong. But you hear the SAME justifications of 'collateral damage' that you do from the Islamofascists.

As I've said before, the Christian religion has had more time to 'mature'. There are fewer nutjobs out there - but mass murderers were still quite commonly using religious justification for political terrorism (Northern Ireland) until VERY recently.

My point is this. There is a difference between American Muslims and foreign fundamentalists. Just as there's a difference between those at Ruby Ridge and your mainstream Christian. JFK got that kind of bigotry when people thought that having a Catholic President would mean he would be taking order from the Pope. It was false then and it's false now. American Catholics don't take their orders from the Pope and the behavior of the Vatican turns more and more off - to the point where, once again, there's talk of a split - a creation of an American Catholic Church.

Because of the relative 'newness' of dealing with Islamofascists, and the fact that they WERE able to take over a country (Afghanistan) and ARE able to exploit and recruit those who are suffering under the boot of Middle Eastern autocrats and kleptocrats, there's a lot of broad brush painting of Muslims here. Why do I write about this so much? Because being married to a pagan, I got a lot of it first hand.

I sincerely hope you are right, but I do not buy it.

[Guest]

I sincerely hope you are right, but I do not buy it.

I'm with you on this. DJ dost protest too much. His defense of mainstream Islam is contrary to everything I see in this world when it comes to the threat of Islam's rise, and it's growing strength in world affairs.

As Judge Judy says "Don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining".

[Guest]

I have been trying very hard to try and avoid getting too involved in a who did what to whom or when or if religious banter, however there are some statements I cannot just let slide by without comment.

I would like to see the source of basis for the following statement:

"The majority of American Muslims, at a greater percentage than Christians, disavow violence."

The statement is so obviously an opinion or what one would like it to be, being presented as factual basis in a far too general context, in my opinion.

Switching back and forth from general statements to isolated and specifics (like killing abortion doctors) do not validate the here and now reality.

Speaking in generalities/beliefs/opinions I would say there are far more Christians who would speak out against other Christians advocating or intending killing anybody than there are Muslims speaking out against other Muslims that advocate and intend killing others, specifically Americans....they just do not do so. And of course there are isolated examples that do.

btk

[Guest]

I have been trying very hard to try and avoid getting too involved in a who did what to whom or when or if religious banter, however there are some statements I cannot just let slide by without comment.

I would like to see the source of basis for the following statement:

"The majority of American Muslims, at a greater percentage than Christians, disavow violence."

The statement is so obviously an opinion or what one would like it to be, being presented as factual basis in a far too general context, in my opinion.

Switching back and forth from general statements to isolated and specifics (like killing abortion doctors) do not validate the here and now reality.

Speaking in generalities/beliefs/opinions I would say there are far more Christians who would speak out against other Christians advocating or intending killing anybody than there are Muslims speaking out against other Muslims that advocate and intend killing others, specifically Americans....they just do not do so. And of course there are isolated examples that do.

btk

Absolutely true post. I can only think those that continue to defend Muslims as peace loving people, and more so than Christians, is nothing more than a way to elevate argument. This thread has been distorted from the OP being BE WHO YOU ARE, JUST DO NOT TRY TO UNDERMINE US LAW OR CUSTOMS. If for no other reason than it is hard to find an American LEADER that shouts DEATH TO ALL INFIDELS as many Muslims do, then I ask that we be diligent when it comes to infiltration of outside faith/customs into our way of life..

[Guest]

"This thread has been distorted from the OP being BE WHO YOU ARE, JUST DO NOT TRY TO UNDERMINE US LAW OR CUSTOMS."

I think all of us can agree on not wanting some form of religious or cultural situation that would undermine US law.

The "customs" part is different. For example, women wearing a burka for government ID should not be tolerated. The Mormon "custom" of polygamy was not tolerated and is now subject to US law of one wife.

Customs such as observing holidays like in native countries is fine with me. After all, we do celebrations for Mardi Gras, Oktoberfest, and St. Patrick's Day.

I do not think most of us are on totally different pages here - just in some fine tuning. Of course, some fine tuning of delicate instruments might require a ball-peen hammer.

[Guest]

"This thread has been distorted from the OP being BE WHO YOU ARE, JUST DO NOT TRY TO UNDERMINE US LAW OR CUSTOMS."

I think all of us can agree on not wanting some form of religious or cultural situation that would undermine US law.

The "customs" part is different. For example, women wearing a burka for government ID should not be tolerated. The Mormon "custom" of polygamy was not tolerated and is now subject to US law of one wife.

Customs such as observing holidays like in native countries is fine with me. After all, we do celebrations for Mardi Gras, Oktoberfest, and St. Patrick's Day.

I do not think most of us are on totally different pages here - just in some fine tuning. Of course, some fine tuning of delicate instruments might require a ball-peen hammer.

:agree: I only hope that some on this thread do not "breath in" too deeply, sand is not good for the lungs.

[Guest]

:agree: I only hope that some on this thread do not "breath in" too deeply, sand is not good for the lungs.

LOL :laugh:

[Guest]

I sometimes have days where I spend a lot of time in the sand traps on the golf courses here at The Villages. Some of the courses must have been designed by Arabs who were feeling lonely for lots and lots of sand.

[Guest]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:I sometimes have days where I spend a lot of time in the sand traps on the golf courses here at The Villages. Some of the courses must have been designed by Arabs who were feeling lonely for lots and lots of sand.

LMAO! :1rotfl: however, I wasn't refering to you!

[Guest]

and so it continues..lady converts to Christianity and subsquently she and her children are killed by Muslim boyfriend. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/honor-killing-christian-convert-mother-of-three-month-old-baby-2-year-old-and-9-year-old-baby-brutal.html?utm_source=twitterfeed

[Guest]

I'm with you on this. DJ dost protest too much. His defense of mainstream Islam is contrary to everything I see in this world when it comes to the threat of Islam's rise, and it's growing strength in world affairs.

As Judge Judy says "Don't **** on my leg and tell me it's raining".

I "protest too much" because I fervently fear Pastor Neimuller's words in today's atmosphere of fear.

You know how it goes.

"And when they came for me, there was nobody to speak out.."

Understanding that not EVERYONE is like the nutjobs we read about.

Understanding the fact that the news organizations are in the business of RATINGS. Their customers are ADVERTISERS and WE are the product they are trying to deliver.

I'm old enough to remember the "Commies under the bed" syndrome. I've seen so many threats to this country and yet we still endure. Commies were going to do us in, then it was (remember this) cheap Japanese imports and we were going to end up being OWNED by the Japanese.

There's always a "boogeyman of the month" and, with radical Islam gaining ground in the catbox known as the Middle East, there's plenty of stories to fan the flames.

Does anyone remember the last time New York got hit with a terrorist bomb before the Islamofascists decided to do it? It was Puerto Rican separatists. Any guesses on how the Hispanic population was treated for a while?

How about WWII? We interred innocent Americans in detention camps without even any charges. Notice how we didn't do that to people with German or Italian sounding names (though they got their share of bigotry - we didn't round them up like we did the Japanese)

We're coming dangerously close to that again.

[Guest]

I would like to see the source of basis for the following statement:

"The majority of American Muslims, at a greater percentage than Christians, disavow violence."

The statement is so obviously an opinion or what one would like it to be, being presented as factual basis in a far too general context, in my opinion.


I quoted the results from a Gallup poll uptopic and, further uptopic, provided the link to it.

It's not my opinion - it's the conclusion of the poll. For clarity's sake, I included the two questions asked so the context could be seen.

[Guest]

...not to take anyone's side here - but...as one of the comments on the story read:

"Absolute utter nonsense spouted by some non-entities here. Basically this is relationship, a violent relationship gone wrong, which led to murder. It happens everyday in every race, creed and religion. This murder had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

A good Muslim would NOT have a girlfriend, nor kids out of wedlock. "Malik" is NOT a Sikh name. "Rubina Malik" is very much a Muslim name and neither Ruby Love (Malik), nor her boyfriend were committed to any form of religion. Just look at their lifestyle."

Of course it is terrible for a young woman to be killed by her boyfriend - but there is nothing here that says it was a Muslim vs Christian conflict.

[Guest]

Did everyone hear of those murders that were committed by the father in a Santa Claus costume? There's evidence this was another "honor killing" by a man who "had to do it" as his daughter was dating a non-Muslim. Right in our own free country. How come no major media outlet is investigating this story? Oh wait; maybe they're more religiously tolerant that me.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/islamic-honor-killing-in-texas-man-who-murdered-family-on-christmas-morning-was-muslim-who-disliked.html

[Guest]

They must renounce shira law in favor of the U.S. Constiton and legal system. If not, they must leave.

[Guest]

Well, it is January 1 and the usual crew of uber-conservatives are still looking to expel all Muslims from the USA.

They look to reactionary news clips from extremist groups for their ammunition. Instead of going to the extremist groups, why not look around for the most logical explanation?

No one knows what the actual reason is that the Iranian-American in Texas killed his estranged familiy. It probably was financial as detailed in the attached link. Anyhow, the shooter is dead by his own handgun. Would an "honor killer" kill themself? Wouldn't they be proud of their accomplishment?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/28/v-print/3621308/texts-show-texas-christmas-day.html

[Guest]

They must renounce shira law in favor of the U.S. Constiton and legal system. If not, they must leave.


If they become a citizen, they swear to it, but unlike when a Christian swears an oath, to a Muslim it means squat.

http://sorisomail.com/email/74298/como-se-danca-o-merengue.html

[Guest]

Yeah, like all those Catholic priests who raped boys. They took THEIR oath seriously.

Like all those "Christians" in Massachusetts who were arrested for gun-running sending arms to the IRA so that more Protestants could be killed in Norhtern Ireland.

Or Eric Robert Rudolph who took the same oath I did when he was in the military. He was a member of Christian Identity. He is also known as the Olympic Park Bomber and has confessed to bombing 2 abortion clinics and a lesbian bar with one of those bombings killing a Birmingham police officer.

Yeah, Christians *always* live up to their oaths.

Here's a hint - PEOPLE commit crimes. People of ALL faiths.

Dear Lord this sounds like the stuff I heard in my childhood about 'those blacks'. It sounds like stuff two of my acquaintences believe TODAY about Jews (can't trust them, they'll always screw you over in a transaction, they believe they can cheat non-Jews with impunity).

And I suppose the oath that the Muslim Congressman that I mentioned uptopic means nothing (ok, that might be a bad example at least as far as doing one's job - but I don't think he's about to help out a terrorist)

[Guest]

Oh well. I'm all out of breath on this one. My final statement is:

I do not trust Muslims nor street gangs.

Bye.:spoken:

[Guest]

"The United Nations reports 5,000 females a year are victims of honor killings around the world"...http://news.yahoo.com/family-horror-canadians-see-culture-clash-155239991.html;_ylt=AnIiEXlGgg73dvbc4bUG9JbzWed_;_ ylu=X3oDMTRvMDQ2ZW5tBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwM2NWI5NWJm OC1mNGRmLTMyN2UtODFlOS0wNjlhNjkwNmIxZmYEcG9zAzkEc2 VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMTdkYTQ1MjAtMmY4Mi0xMWUx LTlmZmYtMjc5YzQ4MDc3ODEw;_ylg=X3oDMTJyN29ldnZlBGlu dGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMjExYjI4OGQtMzE2YS 0zNWI4LWFjMDEtZGVmZjM0ODg1M2JjBHBzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANz dG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3

[Guest]

Oh well. I'm all out of breath on this one. My final statement is:

I do not trust Muslims nor street gangs.

Bye.:spoken:

This may sound sarcastic but it isn't.

I *do* appreciate your honesty.

[Guest]

Former Muslim woman tells the ugly truth about the abuse of women in Islam...Where is the outrage from the Americans who defend a woman's right to choose?!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=4zJz79COpa0

[Guest]

"The United Nations reports 5,000 females a year are victims of honor killings around the world"...http://news.yahoo.com/family-horror-canadians-see-culture-clash-155239991.html;_ylt=AnIiEXlGgg73dvbc4bUG9JbzWed_;_ ylu=X3oDMTRvMDQ2ZW5tBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwM2NWI5NWJm OC1mNGRmLTMyN2UtODFlOS0wNjlhNjkwNmIxZmYEcG9zAzkEc2 VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMTdkYTQ1MjAtMmY4Mi0xMWUx LTlmZmYtMjc5YzQ4MDc3ODEw;_ylg=X3oDMTJyN29ldnZlBGlu dGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMjExYjI4OGQtMzE2YS 0zNWI4LWFjMDEtZGVmZjM0ODg1M2JjBHBzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANz dG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3

And one was right in my former backyard.:ohdear:

http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/1508

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/nyregion/08behead.html

[Guest]

It's one thing to be able to prosecute these crimes here in the US.

But it DOES raise the issue about how much of a 'world policeman' we want, or can afford, to be.

[Guest]

It's one thing to be able to prosecute these crimes here in the US.

But it DOES raise the issue about how much of a 'world policeman' we want, or can afford, to be.


Just concerned that Sharia Law does not come to a town near you/I anytime soon...or ever.

[Guest]

Just concerned that Sharia Law does not come to a town near you/I anytime soon...or ever.

YES. It would be like getting lung cancer and then deciding to quit smoking. Well folks, I tell you here and now, PREVENTION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN CURE.
We tolerate and award LAZY in the name of Kindness and that is Wrong.

Please do not tolerate chipping away at this nations founding principles.

[Guest]

the chipping away has been progressing in recent years with the continuing progress eliminating GO from public buildings, etc.

My concern is the silent majority that becomes aware of it, views that it does not affect them and roll over and go back to watching their favorite television show......

remember the patience of those who would have the USA removed from it's current life status. It may take generations but when the newer generations come along and there is no public evidence of our basic, founding core values it will become easier and easier to suck in the subsequent generations until eventually.....they win!!.

We the people just can't be bothered it seems.

btk

[Guest]

Educate the young people as to the past. History will tell what will happen in the future

[Guest]

"Obama Admin Mandates Religious Employers Cover Contraception Cost, Catholic Bishops Furious" from theblaze.com


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-admin-mandates-religious-employers-cover-contraception-cost-catholic-bishops-furious/


“The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand,” Dolan said. “The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision.”


“This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights,” said Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals. “I have hundreds of employees who will be upset and confused by this edict. I cannot understand it at all.”

[Guest]

Interesting.

I love the comment about how they have a year to figure out how to violate their consciences.

I know two wrongs don't make a right but where were their consciences (and where are they today) when it comes to sheltering child rapists?

Their employees will be upset and *confused*?? Ok, I can understand, out on a limb a bit, being upset if their the ones paying the insurance premiums. But "confused"? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Oh - but wait - according to a Reuters report I just looked up, 98% of sexually active American Catholics use artificial birth control. For what it's worth, it's one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. At the time, John Paul II was pope - he went to Africa and still preached against birth control. Let that one sink in for a moment.

[Guest]

djplong~ are you a man of faith?

[Guest]

Interesting. I know two wrongs don't make a right but where were their consciences (and where are they today) when it comes to sheltering child rapists?

Unrelated to the questions of this thread I would like to just comment on this never ending diatribe of yours. Albeit a very serious problem the church has had with factions of clergy, a point has to be made here.

A Catholic can never say anything positive about his faith on this thread without you regurgitating your obsession with the problem of pedophile priests.

Should Catholicism be outlawed, or what? What is the point of bringing this up every time a subject having something to do with the Catholic religion is raised?

Do you think the Catholics on this forum are part of the problem the church has had with pedophile priests?

Can we never have a discussion on this forum about a question about Catholic matters without you raising your hand (ooo, ooo, ooo), and asking about the problems the church has had with this?

Maybe I'm just sensitive, or maybe it's because I went to 12 years of parochial schooling where I had contact with priests almost every day of that time which were always positive experiences. The priests I'd encountered during that time being thoughtful teachers, advisors and mentors.

[Guest]

Unrelated to the questions of this thread I would like to just comment on this never ending diatribe of yours. Albeit a very serious problem the church has had with factions of clergy, a point has to be made here.

A Catholic can never say anything positive about his faith on this thread without you regurgitating your obsession with the problem of pedophile priests.

Should Catholicism be outlawed, or what? What is the point of bringing this up every time a subject having something to do with the Catholic religion is raised?

Do you think the Catholics on this forum are part of the problem the church has had with pedophile priests?

Can we never have a discussion on this forum about a question about Catholic matters without you raising your hand (ooo, ooo, ooo), and asking about the problems the church has had with this?

Maybe I'm just sensitive, or maybe it's because I went to 12 years of parochial schooling where I had contact with priests almost every day of that time which were always positive experiences. The priests I'd encountered during that time being thoughtful teachers, advisors and mentors.

AMEN BROTHER! I am curious to know if djplong is a man of faith. I am not a Catholic, but I sent my kids through 50+ years of parochial schooling (k-12 and college) with nary a hint of impropriety! I am however a Christian, and like my Catholic brothers and sisters, my faith is in the saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Who being God in the flesh is PERFECT...NOT in His Church, which is made up of just plain imperfect human beings like djplong and me. Big difference.

[Guest]

To date, the police have been contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of abuse, or 24% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.

Not sure how to take this, but read the entire report for yourself:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PriestAbuseScandal.htm

[Guest]

djplong~ are you a man of faith?

Define "man of faith" and I promise I will give you an honest answer. It's just that I can take that a couple of different ways and I'm not 100% sure what you meant.

You could mean do I simply believe in God or, perhaps, do I have 'faith' in anything, etc..